<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_11_1342207</id>
	<title>Google Rejects Australian Censorship Proposal</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1265900940000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Xiroth writes <i>"Google has <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/google-baulks-at-conroys-call-to-censor-youtube-20100211-ntm0.html">rejected overtures from the Australian government</a> to censor YouTube clips that had been given an RC rating by Australian classification authority, the OFLC. According to a Google spokesperson: 'YouTube has clear policies about what content is not allowed, for example hate speech and pornography, and we enforce these, but we can't give any assurances that we would voluntarily remove all Refused Classification content from YouTube.
The scope of RC is simply too broad and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information. RC includes the grey realms of material instructing in any crime from [painting] graffiti to politically controversial crimes such as euthanasia, and exposing these topics to public debate is vital for democracy.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Xiroth writes " Google has rejected overtures from the Australian government to censor YouTube clips that had been given an RC rating by Australian classification authority , the OFLC .
According to a Google spokesperson : 'YouTube has clear policies about what content is not allowed , for example hate speech and pornography , and we enforce these , but we ca n't give any assurances that we would voluntarily remove all Refused Classification content from YouTube .
The scope of RC is simply too broad and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information .
RC includes the grey realms of material instructing in any crime from [ painting ] graffiti to politically controversial crimes such as euthanasia , and exposing these topics to public debate is vital for democracy .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Xiroth writes "Google has rejected overtures from the Australian government to censor YouTube clips that had been given an RC rating by Australian classification authority, the OFLC.
According to a Google spokesperson: 'YouTube has clear policies about what content is not allowed, for example hate speech and pornography, and we enforce these, but we can't give any assurances that we would voluntarily remove all Refused Classification content from YouTube.
The scope of RC is simply too broad and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information.
RC includes the grey realms of material instructing in any crime from [painting] graffiti to politically controversial crimes such as euthanasia, and exposing these topics to public debate is vital for democracy.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100780</id>
	<title>Re:Can an Australian brother...</title>
	<author>twidarkling</author>
	<datestamp>1265909340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation, the Australian government passes it off as "not censorship" because all they're doing is "refusing classification." Unfortunately, anything without a classification cannot be sold in Australia. So, they're not banning it, technically, they're simply making it impossible to sell in a legal manner.</p><p>It's a shit politicians' trick, and it's worked for a while. Fortunately, much of the citizenship there seems to finally be waking up, if the repeal of the law that made it illegal to anonymously comment on politics due to public outcry is anything to go on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation , the Australian government passes it off as " not censorship " because all they 're doing is " refusing classification .
" Unfortunately , anything without a classification can not be sold in Australia .
So , they 're not banning it , technically , they 're simply making it impossible to sell in a legal manner.It 's a shit politicians ' trick , and it 's worked for a while .
Fortunately , much of the citizenship there seems to finally be waking up , if the repeal of the law that made it illegal to anonymously comment on politics due to public outcry is anything to go on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation, the Australian government passes it off as "not censorship" because all they're doing is "refusing classification.
" Unfortunately, anything without a classification cannot be sold in Australia.
So, they're not banning it, technically, they're simply making it impossible to sell in a legal manner.It's a shit politicians' trick, and it's worked for a while.
Fortunately, much of the citizenship there seems to finally be waking up, if the repeal of the law that made it illegal to anonymously comment on politics due to public outcry is anything to go on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31108016</id>
	<title>Re:Can an Australian brother...</title>
	<author>Techman83</author>
	<datestamp>1265896080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can tell you what happened, Priminister Kevin Rudd successfully campaigned and got elected over a government (Liberals/Nationals Coalition) that had been in power for 12 years,  that same government had also made some pretty unpopular decisions and their leader was likely to retire before the end of the full term, meaning that someone we didn't vote for would be in charge.<br> <br>As for the Censorship, Optional Filtering that must be provided by all ISPs was on the cards and has been for every governments election agenda to investigate these issues for over a decade. Senator Conroy placed very little focus on it, but instead toured the country giving talks in lots of communities about how the current government was letting Telstra hold the country back and that something needed to be done about the infrastructure. I went to one of these "Broadband Forums" and was very vocal in regards to the fact he was making the wrong decision, that Fibre to the Node wasn't good enough and it turns out I was right and they wasted a whole heap of money investigating that.<br> <br>Now as it turns out Senator Conroy has proven to be an uptight Religious Nut that wants to make sure no one can see "Unwanted" content on the Internet. Not only that, unwanted will be decided in secret, behind closed doors and no one will be told what is unwanted. Senator Conroy is wasting a bucket load of the Australian Tax Payers money and there are a lot of people who are very very angry about it. Anecdotal evidence this may be, but I have not spoken to a person who, once explained in full what they are actually doing, in support of Senator Conroy's position.<br> <br> I applaud Google for not buckling to the whim of one very closed minded man and his agenda.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can tell you what happened , Priminister Kevin Rudd successfully campaigned and got elected over a government ( Liberals/Nationals Coalition ) that had been in power for 12 years , that same government had also made some pretty unpopular decisions and their leader was likely to retire before the end of the full term , meaning that someone we did n't vote for would be in charge .
As for the Censorship , Optional Filtering that must be provided by all ISPs was on the cards and has been for every governments election agenda to investigate these issues for over a decade .
Senator Conroy placed very little focus on it , but instead toured the country giving talks in lots of communities about how the current government was letting Telstra hold the country back and that something needed to be done about the infrastructure .
I went to one of these " Broadband Forums " and was very vocal in regards to the fact he was making the wrong decision , that Fibre to the Node was n't good enough and it turns out I was right and they wasted a whole heap of money investigating that .
Now as it turns out Senator Conroy has proven to be an uptight Religious Nut that wants to make sure no one can see " Unwanted " content on the Internet .
Not only that , unwanted will be decided in secret , behind closed doors and no one will be told what is unwanted .
Senator Conroy is wasting a bucket load of the Australian Tax Payers money and there are a lot of people who are very very angry about it .
Anecdotal evidence this may be , but I have not spoken to a person who , once explained in full what they are actually doing , in support of Senator Conroy 's position .
I applaud Google for not buckling to the whim of one very closed minded man and his agenda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can tell you what happened, Priminister Kevin Rudd successfully campaigned and got elected over a government (Liberals/Nationals Coalition) that had been in power for 12 years,  that same government had also made some pretty unpopular decisions and their leader was likely to retire before the end of the full term, meaning that someone we didn't vote for would be in charge.
As for the Censorship, Optional Filtering that must be provided by all ISPs was on the cards and has been for every governments election agenda to investigate these issues for over a decade.
Senator Conroy placed very little focus on it, but instead toured the country giving talks in lots of communities about how the current government was letting Telstra hold the country back and that something needed to be done about the infrastructure.
I went to one of these "Broadband Forums" and was very vocal in regards to the fact he was making the wrong decision, that Fibre to the Node wasn't good enough and it turns out I was right and they wasted a whole heap of money investigating that.
Now as it turns out Senator Conroy has proven to be an uptight Religious Nut that wants to make sure no one can see "Unwanted" content on the Internet.
Not only that, unwanted will be decided in secret, behind closed doors and no one will be told what is unwanted.
Senator Conroy is wasting a bucket load of the Australian Tax Payers money and there are a lot of people who are very very angry about it.
Anecdotal evidence this may be, but I have not spoken to a person who, once explained in full what they are actually doing, in support of Senator Conroy's position.
I applaud Google for not buckling to the whim of one very closed minded man and his agenda.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099906</id>
	<title>I guess Google's gonna have to pull out of</title>
	<author>wiredog</author>
	<datestamp>1265905320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Australia, just like China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Australia , just like China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Australia, just like China.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101310</id>
	<title>Re:Can an Australian brother...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265912280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Freedom of speech just isn't on the radar in Australian politics. It's all about being comfortable, having a big house, and being safe from bushfires (and nature in general). Abstract concepts don't really enter into it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Freedom of speech just is n't on the radar in Australian politics .
It 's all about being comfortable , having a big house , and being safe from bushfires ( and nature in general ) .
Abstract concepts do n't really enter into it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Freedom of speech just isn't on the radar in Australian politics.
It's all about being comfortable, having a big house, and being safe from bushfires (and nature in general).
Abstract concepts don't really enter into it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100810</id>
	<title>Arbitrary application of policy</title>
	<author>KnownIssues</author>
	<datestamp>1265909460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, this sentence works, "The scope of RC is simply too broad and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information." But this sentence doesn't, "The scope of DMCA is simply too broad and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information." Weird.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , this sentence works , " The scope of RC is simply too broad and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information .
" But this sentence does n't , " The scope of DMCA is simply too broad and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information .
" Weird .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, this sentence works, "The scope of RC is simply too broad and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information.
" But this sentence doesn't, "The scope of DMCA is simply too broad and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information.
" Weird.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028</id>
	<title>Re:This is getting interesting!</title>
	<author>MrNaz</author>
	<datestamp>1265905980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also worrying is the fact that YouTube considers itself infrastructure for "free speech". What if they decide to broaden their definitions of "hate speech" and "pornography"?</p><p>The Internet is supposed to be free. It is supposed to allow equal access to data by equal parties. The existence of megacorporations in this space undermines the original spirit of the Internet, and provides just another way to turn the once-egalitarian Internet into just another tilted media outlet like Fox News.</p><p>This brings about a good discussion point: I remember the days of usenet, when IRC was the main form of IM, when gopher provided beautiful cruft-free content and I pine. No really, I still use pine. How could we, as citizens of the global Internet connected society, go about moving back towards an egalitarian Internet? I recognize that technology has moved forwards, however, I am left wondering how would we move the *values* back to what they were? Was it the massive influx of average people that did this to the Internet community? Or was it the megacorps who eventually found ways to monetize Internet users?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also worrying is the fact that YouTube considers itself infrastructure for " free speech " .
What if they decide to broaden their definitions of " hate speech " and " pornography " ? The Internet is supposed to be free .
It is supposed to allow equal access to data by equal parties .
The existence of megacorporations in this space undermines the original spirit of the Internet , and provides just another way to turn the once-egalitarian Internet into just another tilted media outlet like Fox News.This brings about a good discussion point : I remember the days of usenet , when IRC was the main form of IM , when gopher provided beautiful cruft-free content and I pine .
No really , I still use pine .
How could we , as citizens of the global Internet connected society , go about moving back towards an egalitarian Internet ?
I recognize that technology has moved forwards , however , I am left wondering how would we move the * values * back to what they were ?
Was it the massive influx of average people that did this to the Internet community ?
Or was it the megacorps who eventually found ways to monetize Internet users ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also worrying is the fact that YouTube considers itself infrastructure for "free speech".
What if they decide to broaden their definitions of "hate speech" and "pornography"?The Internet is supposed to be free.
It is supposed to allow equal access to data by equal parties.
The existence of megacorporations in this space undermines the original spirit of the Internet, and provides just another way to turn the once-egalitarian Internet into just another tilted media outlet like Fox News.This brings about a good discussion point: I remember the days of usenet, when IRC was the main form of IM, when gopher provided beautiful cruft-free content and I pine.
No really, I still use pine.
How could we, as citizens of the global Internet connected society, go about moving back towards an egalitarian Internet?
I recognize that technology has moved forwards, however, I am left wondering how would we move the *values* back to what they were?
Was it the massive influx of average people that did this to the Internet community?
Or was it the megacorps who eventually found ways to monetize Internet users?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31102730</id>
	<title>Re:Can an Australian brother...</title>
	<author>element-o.p.</author>
	<datestamp>1265917920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stupid question for you, then...if it isn't being sold, but is being freely given away, does it still run afoul of the law?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stupid question for you , then...if it is n't being sold , but is being freely given away , does it still run afoul of the law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stupid question for you, then...if it isn't being sold, but is being freely given away, does it still run afoul of the law?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31110602</id>
	<title>Re:Can an Australian brother...</title>
	<author>Splintax</author>
	<datestamp>1265968020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>explain to me what a) brought on these draconian laws/ideals b) what the opposition is doing against it? I've always (maybe naively) thought of Australia as a laid-back and liberal kind of a place.</p></div><p>As others have pointed out, Australia has a pretty socially-conservative citizenry. In fact, it's the less conservative of the two major parties (Labor) pushing the censorship legislation. The opposition (who actually call themselves the 'Liberal' party) are not attacking the legislation because it's not an important issue to the Australian public -- people are more concerned about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon\_Pollution\_Reduction\_Scheme" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">energy policy</a> [wikipedia.org] than anything else at the moment.</p><p>Both the mandatory internet filter legislation and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFACT\_v\_iiNet" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">AFACT v iiNet case</a> [wikipedia.org] have been mentioned on Slashdot several times, but neither have much presence in the Australian media. I've never seen either issue mentioned on a mainstream news broadcast, nor have I seen them appear before page 15 or so of the major newspapers in my state. The average foreign Slashdot reader knows a lot more about the 'censorship movement' in Australia than the average Australian.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>explain to me what a ) brought on these draconian laws/ideals b ) what the opposition is doing against it ?
I 've always ( maybe naively ) thought of Australia as a laid-back and liberal kind of a place.As others have pointed out , Australia has a pretty socially-conservative citizenry .
In fact , it 's the less conservative of the two major parties ( Labor ) pushing the censorship legislation .
The opposition ( who actually call themselves the 'Liberal ' party ) are not attacking the legislation because it 's not an important issue to the Australian public -- people are more concerned about energy policy [ wikipedia.org ] than anything else at the moment.Both the mandatory internet filter legislation and the AFACT v iiNet case [ wikipedia.org ] have been mentioned on Slashdot several times , but neither have much presence in the Australian media .
I 've never seen either issue mentioned on a mainstream news broadcast , nor have I seen them appear before page 15 or so of the major newspapers in my state .
The average foreign Slashdot reader knows a lot more about the 'censorship movement ' in Australia than the average Australian .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>explain to me what a) brought on these draconian laws/ideals b) what the opposition is doing against it?
I've always (maybe naively) thought of Australia as a laid-back and liberal kind of a place.As others have pointed out, Australia has a pretty socially-conservative citizenry.
In fact, it's the less conservative of the two major parties (Labor) pushing the censorship legislation.
The opposition (who actually call themselves the 'Liberal' party) are not attacking the legislation because it's not an important issue to the Australian public -- people are more concerned about energy policy [wikipedia.org] than anything else at the moment.Both the mandatory internet filter legislation and the AFACT v iiNet case [wikipedia.org] have been mentioned on Slashdot several times, but neither have much presence in the Australian media.
I've never seen either issue mentioned on a mainstream news broadcast, nor have I seen them appear before page 15 or so of the major newspapers in my state.
The average foreign Slashdot reader knows a lot more about the 'censorship movement' in Australia than the average Australian.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100298</id>
	<title>"Overkill"...</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1265907120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man, the only thing Australia would have needed to ban would have been the third Crocodile Dundee Movie and the third Men at Work Album, and all would have been absolutely fabulous.  Instead, it seems like they are banning everything but the third Men at Work album, and that's just tragic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , the only thing Australia would have needed to ban would have been the third Crocodile Dundee Movie and the third Men at Work Album , and all would have been absolutely fabulous .
Instead , it seems like they are banning everything but the third Men at Work album , and that 's just tragic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, the only thing Australia would have needed to ban would have been the third Crocodile Dundee Movie and the third Men at Work Album, and all would have been absolutely fabulous.
Instead, it seems like they are banning everything but the third Men at Work album, and that's just tragic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100004</id>
	<title>Re:lazy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265905800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The internet is a global network, which seems to be an often overlooked fact lately. (Heads buried in the sand?)<br>Pulling down content is a choice, and if there is something that bothers a particular nation out there, they need to grow the fuck up.</p><p>Intolerance can not be tolerated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The internet is a global network , which seems to be an often overlooked fact lately .
( Heads buried in the sand ?
) Pulling down content is a choice , and if there is something that bothers a particular nation out there , they need to grow the fuck up.Intolerance can not be tolerated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The internet is a global network, which seems to be an often overlooked fact lately.
(Heads buried in the sand?
)Pulling down content is a choice, and if there is something that bothers a particular nation out there, they need to grow the fuck up.Intolerance can not be tolerated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100040</id>
	<title>The key word (from TFA) is "voluntarily"</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1265906040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google are just playing the coquette.  They'll give it up all right, they'll give it up <em>hard</em>, but for the sake of their reputation, they want three dates, flowers, and a subpoena first.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google are just playing the coquette .
They 'll give it up all right , they 'll give it up hard , but for the sake of their reputation , they want three dates , flowers , and a subpoena first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google are just playing the coquette.
They'll give it up all right, they'll give it up hard, but for the sake of their reputation, they want three dates, flowers, and a subpoena first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31104792</id>
	<title>Re:Arbitrary application of policy</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1265882460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The scope of DMCA is simply too broad and can raise genuine questions about<br>&gt; restrictions on access to information.</p><p>Please explain in what way the DMCA limits Google's ability to provide access to information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The scope of DMCA is simply too broad and can raise genuine questions about &gt; restrictions on access to information.Please explain in what way the DMCA limits Google 's ability to provide access to information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The scope of DMCA is simply too broad and can raise genuine questions about&gt; restrictions on access to information.Please explain in what way the DMCA limits Google's ability to provide access to information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101180</id>
	<title>Re:familiar</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1265911620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You actually wrote "frak"? In a post about government censorship?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You actually wrote " frak " ?
In a post about government censorship ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You actually wrote "frak"?
In a post about government censorship?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099854</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100612</id>
	<title>Re:sigh</title>
	<author>Machtyn</author>
	<datestamp>1265908380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot to mention Gore and all the other the-rules-we-make-only-apply-to-you liberals in your list.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot to mention Gore and all the other the-rules-we-make-only-apply-to-you liberals in your list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot to mention Gore and all the other the-rules-we-make-only-apply-to-you liberals in your list.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101148</id>
	<title>Re:Rating every YouTube video?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1265911500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would you want that job?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you want that job ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you want that job?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31102032</id>
	<title>Re:What is hate speech?</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1265915760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am not a member or supporter in anyway of the KKK, Nazis, etc., but why is certain speech categorized as "hate" and therefore not allowed to be even stated? Who decides what is hate?</p></div><p>If you want it in US lingo, think of it as class action libel/slander. There's usually some rather blatant accusations and dehumanizing insults involved, it's just not aimed directly at one person. Usually it's followed shortly by a call to take away rights that one in the US would call "unalienable", sending Europe back to where the US was before the civil rights movement. sometimes I think even before the Civil War. One set of rules for the white people, another set of rules for everyone else.</p><p>To really understand it, you must understand the difference between the country and the people. Americans tend to have a very strong allegiance to their country, but little to the people. Compared to say the German or French or English, I'm not even sure you can say there is an American people. In the US, the last step is your citizenship when you "really" become an American. In Europe you can become a citizen, but getting accepted as part of the people takes much longer and requires you to adopt their lifestyle and values and culture.</p><p>That division is much deeper in Europe, and nothing in the US really compares. The KKK had six million members and yet: "The number of lynchings escalated, and from 1918 to 1927, 416 African Americans were killed, mostly in the South." according to wikipedia. The Nazis killed more Jews per day than that during WWII, not counting all the other millions of people they were at war with in no small part because they deemed themselves a higher race destined to rule over the lesser races.</p><p>That ideology is dead, but people still think in terms of ethnics not citizenships. The only reason the US doesn't have hate speech laws is that it's never seen its own people truly go "us" against "them". Europe has, and has paid the cost in blood by the millions. So did 400,000 Americans. And those lines will lie latent in Europe long after Obama makes the US mushpot an even more well-mixed mushpot. In Europe there will be the "natives" and "foreigners" for centuries to come, even if they are natural born citizens.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not a member or supporter in anyway of the KKK , Nazis , etc. , but why is certain speech categorized as " hate " and therefore not allowed to be even stated ?
Who decides what is hate ? If you want it in US lingo , think of it as class action libel/slander .
There 's usually some rather blatant accusations and dehumanizing insults involved , it 's just not aimed directly at one person .
Usually it 's followed shortly by a call to take away rights that one in the US would call " unalienable " , sending Europe back to where the US was before the civil rights movement .
sometimes I think even before the Civil War .
One set of rules for the white people , another set of rules for everyone else.To really understand it , you must understand the difference between the country and the people .
Americans tend to have a very strong allegiance to their country , but little to the people .
Compared to say the German or French or English , I 'm not even sure you can say there is an American people .
In the US , the last step is your citizenship when you " really " become an American .
In Europe you can become a citizen , but getting accepted as part of the people takes much longer and requires you to adopt their lifestyle and values and culture.That division is much deeper in Europe , and nothing in the US really compares .
The KKK had six million members and yet : " The number of lynchings escalated , and from 1918 to 1927 , 416 African Americans were killed , mostly in the South .
" according to wikipedia .
The Nazis killed more Jews per day than that during WWII , not counting all the other millions of people they were at war with in no small part because they deemed themselves a higher race destined to rule over the lesser races.That ideology is dead , but people still think in terms of ethnics not citizenships .
The only reason the US does n't have hate speech laws is that it 's never seen its own people truly go " us " against " them " .
Europe has , and has paid the cost in blood by the millions .
So did 400,000 Americans .
And those lines will lie latent in Europe long after Obama makes the US mushpot an even more well-mixed mushpot .
In Europe there will be the " natives " and " foreigners " for centuries to come , even if they are natural born citizens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not a member or supporter in anyway of the KKK, Nazis, etc., but why is certain speech categorized as "hate" and therefore not allowed to be even stated?
Who decides what is hate?If you want it in US lingo, think of it as class action libel/slander.
There's usually some rather blatant accusations and dehumanizing insults involved, it's just not aimed directly at one person.
Usually it's followed shortly by a call to take away rights that one in the US would call "unalienable", sending Europe back to where the US was before the civil rights movement.
sometimes I think even before the Civil War.
One set of rules for the white people, another set of rules for everyone else.To really understand it, you must understand the difference between the country and the people.
Americans tend to have a very strong allegiance to their country, but little to the people.
Compared to say the German or French or English, I'm not even sure you can say there is an American people.
In the US, the last step is your citizenship when you "really" become an American.
In Europe you can become a citizen, but getting accepted as part of the people takes much longer and requires you to adopt their lifestyle and values and culture.That division is much deeper in Europe, and nothing in the US really compares.
The KKK had six million members and yet: "The number of lynchings escalated, and from 1918 to 1927, 416 African Americans were killed, mostly in the South.
" according to wikipedia.
The Nazis killed more Jews per day than that during WWII, not counting all the other millions of people they were at war with in no small part because they deemed themselves a higher race destined to rule over the lesser races.That ideology is dead, but people still think in terms of ethnics not citizenships.
The only reason the US doesn't have hate speech laws is that it's never seen its own people truly go "us" against "them".
Europe has, and has paid the cost in blood by the millions.
So did 400,000 Americans.
And those lines will lie latent in Europe long after Obama makes the US mushpot an even more well-mixed mushpot.
In Europe there will be the "natives" and "foreigners" for centuries to come, even if they are natural born citizens.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100552</id>
	<title>uhhh..?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265908200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now, I'm a Google fan, but what? http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/technical-difficulties-pot-tv-removed-youtube</p><p>Youtube has already closed politically charged channels. Growth of democracy? What? More like growth of exactly what you want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , I 'm a Google fan , but what ?
http : //www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/technical-difficulties-pot-tv-removed-youtubeYoutube has already closed politically charged channels .
Growth of democracy ?
What ? More like growth of exactly what you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, I'm a Google fan, but what?
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/technical-difficulties-pot-tv-removed-youtubeYoutube has already closed politically charged channels.
Growth of democracy?
What? More like growth of exactly what you want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101170</id>
	<title>Re:Google still not evil</title>
	<author>Yaa 101</author>
	<datestamp>1265911560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google will be evil as soon as the original people are ousted at some point, then in comes the new psychopath overlords that have only eye for the next 3 month financial statement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google will be evil as soon as the original people are ousted at some point , then in comes the new psychopath overlords that have only eye for the next 3 month financial statement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google will be evil as soon as the original people are ousted at some point, then in comes the new psychopath overlords that have only eye for the next 3 month financial statement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099892</id>
	<title>Google still not evil</title>
	<author>N3tRunner</author>
	<datestamp>1265905320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As Google grows and expands into different markets I personally am more and more suspicious of their activities, especially the tracking that is inherent in their Chrome browser. However, there are constantly things like this were Google seems to be standing behind its principle of "Don't be evil". I hope that they never forget it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As Google grows and expands into different markets I personally am more and more suspicious of their activities , especially the tracking that is inherent in their Chrome browser .
However , there are constantly things like this were Google seems to be standing behind its principle of " Do n't be evil " .
I hope that they never forget it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Google grows and expands into different markets I personally am more and more suspicious of their activities, especially the tracking that is inherent in their Chrome browser.
However, there are constantly things like this were Google seems to be standing behind its principle of "Don't be evil".
I hope that they never forget it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100688</id>
	<title>Re:This is getting interesting!</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1265908860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.  Clearly the internet is lacking in pornography because of Google's efforts.  There's just wave after wave of nothing out there.</p><p>Personally, I wouldn't mind uncensored content in a walled off room of YouTube.  But I understand that would be a hard sell for investors.  And quite frankly, vomiting up a video of racist, homophobic, sexist viewpoints to a private server is pretty cheap and easy to do these days.  It just isn't needed.</p><p>In this case, I applaud Google's efforts.  Australia's BS Refused Classification status is a complete cop-out that everyone in the creative industries has been dealing with for years.  Either man up to banning stuff that you don't like, or let it in an accept that 15 year olds will need to sort out on their own which holes the pointy bits go into.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
Clearly the internet is lacking in pornography because of Google 's efforts .
There 's just wave after wave of nothing out there.Personally , I would n't mind uncensored content in a walled off room of YouTube .
But I understand that would be a hard sell for investors .
And quite frankly , vomiting up a video of racist , homophobic , sexist viewpoints to a private server is pretty cheap and easy to do these days .
It just is n't needed.In this case , I applaud Google 's efforts .
Australia 's BS Refused Classification status is a complete cop-out that everyone in the creative industries has been dealing with for years .
Either man up to banning stuff that you do n't like , or let it in an accept that 15 year olds will need to sort out on their own which holes the pointy bits go into .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
Clearly the internet is lacking in pornography because of Google's efforts.
There's just wave after wave of nothing out there.Personally, I wouldn't mind uncensored content in a walled off room of YouTube.
But I understand that would be a hard sell for investors.
And quite frankly, vomiting up a video of racist, homophobic, sexist viewpoints to a private server is pretty cheap and easy to do these days.
It just isn't needed.In this case, I applaud Google's efforts.
Australia's BS Refused Classification status is a complete cop-out that everyone in the creative industries has been dealing with for years.
Either man up to banning stuff that you don't like, or let it in an accept that 15 year olds will need to sort out on their own which holes the pointy bits go into.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31103792</id>
	<title>Re:Can an Australian brother...</title>
	<author>YankDownUnder</author>
	<datestamp>1265921640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The thing boils down to several issues that "just don't get passed down to the Australian voter" as it were. One is that huge companies like Microsoft are in pocket with the Australian Federal government - hence putting things in their ears, and getting them paranoid about "not being in control". Two is that every single one of the Members of Parliament and the Senators are about as smart as a box of rocks when it comes to anything at ALL to do with "forward thinking technology" (our MySchool website, point in fact). Another aspect is Australia's hush-hush involvement with the ACTA talks. And then you've got the "do-gooders" that seem to think that it's the government's responsibility to protect our young from harm instead of enforcing parental responsibility. If you want to dig further into the entire scene, you'll start to see exactly how "backwater" Australia has let itself become - all due to greed and graft, really - and this also shows why we in Australia pay the highest broadband rates and GSM rates...(it's not because of the old standard excuse "We're ten years behind the US because of technology" - it's because the big-wigs force it on us and justify it with excuses like that). Phew. Time for a coffee.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing boils down to several issues that " just do n't get passed down to the Australian voter " as it were .
One is that huge companies like Microsoft are in pocket with the Australian Federal government - hence putting things in their ears , and getting them paranoid about " not being in control " .
Two is that every single one of the Members of Parliament and the Senators are about as smart as a box of rocks when it comes to anything at ALL to do with " forward thinking technology " ( our MySchool website , point in fact ) .
Another aspect is Australia 's hush-hush involvement with the ACTA talks .
And then you 've got the " do-gooders " that seem to think that it 's the government 's responsibility to protect our young from harm instead of enforcing parental responsibility .
If you want to dig further into the entire scene , you 'll start to see exactly how " backwater " Australia has let itself become - all due to greed and graft , really - and this also shows why we in Australia pay the highest broadband rates and GSM rates... ( it 's not because of the old standard excuse " We 're ten years behind the US because of technology " - it 's because the big-wigs force it on us and justify it with excuses like that ) .
Phew. Time for a coffee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing boils down to several issues that "just don't get passed down to the Australian voter" as it were.
One is that huge companies like Microsoft are in pocket with the Australian Federal government - hence putting things in their ears, and getting them paranoid about "not being in control".
Two is that every single one of the Members of Parliament and the Senators are about as smart as a box of rocks when it comes to anything at ALL to do with "forward thinking technology" (our MySchool website, point in fact).
Another aspect is Australia's hush-hush involvement with the ACTA talks.
And then you've got the "do-gooders" that seem to think that it's the government's responsibility to protect our young from harm instead of enforcing parental responsibility.
If you want to dig further into the entire scene, you'll start to see exactly how "backwater" Australia has let itself become - all due to greed and graft, really - and this also shows why we in Australia pay the highest broadband rates and GSM rates...(it's not because of the old standard excuse "We're ten years behind the US because of technology" - it's because the big-wigs force it on us and justify it with excuses like that).
Phew. Time for a coffee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101138</id>
	<title>Re:What is hate speech?</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1265911500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Google's policy defines it as anything inciting or advocating violence, or making insulting stereotypes or generalizations about any group.  Anyways, YouTube only has this policy due to constant harassment by Lieberman demanding they censors Muslim videos.  But yeah, you can't use THEIR OWN PERSONAL SITE to spew various retarded stereotypes about Mexicans (Look out Mencia!), it's the end of the world.  Free speech means the government can't interfere (Like in Australia) it doesn't mean Google has a legal obligation to carry your hate speech. Oh yeah, in the announcement where Google added this to their policy, they said "We don't expect you to treat everybody like nuns, the elderly, or brain surgeons."  Amazingly, some catholic nutbars started posting about down with Google the great satan, for picking on nuns like that, saying Google's announcement itself was hatespeech!  The nerve, implying nuns should be treated with respect, how dare they!
</p><p>
And what the fuck are you talking about, guilty?  Google doesn't make laws, you're not guilty of any crime.  They delete your video because they find it tasteless.  Did you scream with such rage when Kramer got shitcanned for screaming racial slurs over and over and over and over?  Clubs stopped hiring him so basically he was found guilty of hate speech and banned, just like youtube does!  OH NO SLIPPERY SLOPE.  You can say how you hate black people and gays all you want.  You can't force Google to say it for you.
</p><p>
If you're referring to countries like Canada that actually DO have hate speech laws, it's a lot more rigidly defined than Google (Except Manitoba, but even their own courts throw all those cases out as unconstitutional, and make (unheeded) demands that the provincial government fix them).  As in, to be hate speech, your speech has to be speech that will cause violence or hatred of the group you are targetting.  And judges have interpreted that quite narrowly.  As in, if you say "GOD HATES FAGS, BURN IN HELL HOMOS" that has time and again been affirmed as not hate-speech, as nobody hearing that would start hating gays if they didn't already, and nobody would read it and go beat up a gay person if they weren't going to already.  It's also been held as allowed because the hate speech law has exemptions for anything that is true, or said in good faith.  A preacher believes what he says, and so it's protected speech.  If he actually calls for violence though, that's a different beast, and it doesn't matter if he believes beating gays to death is God's will or not.
</p><p>
As for the Australian law, the Australians have passed a law banning porn that features cartoons (because you can't tell how old a cartoon is so basically its all child porn), female ejaculation (because it's obscene) and women with small breasts (As underage teens also have smaller breasts, and so seeing women with less than a D cup may cause people to turn into pedophiles).  There is currently no word on if they eventually plan to ban having actual consensual sex with adults with small breasts, or if you will be OK as long as you don't film it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's policy defines it as anything inciting or advocating violence , or making insulting stereotypes or generalizations about any group .
Anyways , YouTube only has this policy due to constant harassment by Lieberman demanding they censors Muslim videos .
But yeah , you ca n't use THEIR OWN PERSONAL SITE to spew various retarded stereotypes about Mexicans ( Look out Mencia !
) , it 's the end of the world .
Free speech means the government ca n't interfere ( Like in Australia ) it does n't mean Google has a legal obligation to carry your hate speech .
Oh yeah , in the announcement where Google added this to their policy , they said " We do n't expect you to treat everybody like nuns , the elderly , or brain surgeons .
" Amazingly , some catholic nutbars started posting about down with Google the great satan , for picking on nuns like that , saying Google 's announcement itself was hatespeech !
The nerve , implying nuns should be treated with respect , how dare they !
And what the fuck are you talking about , guilty ?
Google does n't make laws , you 're not guilty of any crime .
They delete your video because they find it tasteless .
Did you scream with such rage when Kramer got shitcanned for screaming racial slurs over and over and over and over ?
Clubs stopped hiring him so basically he was found guilty of hate speech and banned , just like youtube does !
OH NO SLIPPERY SLOPE .
You can say how you hate black people and gays all you want .
You ca n't force Google to say it for you .
If you 're referring to countries like Canada that actually DO have hate speech laws , it 's a lot more rigidly defined than Google ( Except Manitoba , but even their own courts throw all those cases out as unconstitutional , and make ( unheeded ) demands that the provincial government fix them ) .
As in , to be hate speech , your speech has to be speech that will cause violence or hatred of the group you are targetting .
And judges have interpreted that quite narrowly .
As in , if you say " GOD HATES FAGS , BURN IN HELL HOMOS " that has time and again been affirmed as not hate-speech , as nobody hearing that would start hating gays if they did n't already , and nobody would read it and go beat up a gay person if they were n't going to already .
It 's also been held as allowed because the hate speech law has exemptions for anything that is true , or said in good faith .
A preacher believes what he says , and so it 's protected speech .
If he actually calls for violence though , that 's a different beast , and it does n't matter if he believes beating gays to death is God 's will or not .
As for the Australian law , the Australians have passed a law banning porn that features cartoons ( because you ca n't tell how old a cartoon is so basically its all child porn ) , female ejaculation ( because it 's obscene ) and women with small breasts ( As underage teens also have smaller breasts , and so seeing women with less than a D cup may cause people to turn into pedophiles ) .
There is currently no word on if they eventually plan to ban having actual consensual sex with adults with small breasts , or if you will be OK as long as you do n't film it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Google's policy defines it as anything inciting or advocating violence, or making insulting stereotypes or generalizations about any group.
Anyways, YouTube only has this policy due to constant harassment by Lieberman demanding they censors Muslim videos.
But yeah, you can't use THEIR OWN PERSONAL SITE to spew various retarded stereotypes about Mexicans (Look out Mencia!
), it's the end of the world.
Free speech means the government can't interfere (Like in Australia) it doesn't mean Google has a legal obligation to carry your hate speech.
Oh yeah, in the announcement where Google added this to their policy, they said "We don't expect you to treat everybody like nuns, the elderly, or brain surgeons.
"  Amazingly, some catholic nutbars started posting about down with Google the great satan, for picking on nuns like that, saying Google's announcement itself was hatespeech!
The nerve, implying nuns should be treated with respect, how dare they!
And what the fuck are you talking about, guilty?
Google doesn't make laws, you're not guilty of any crime.
They delete your video because they find it tasteless.
Did you scream with such rage when Kramer got shitcanned for screaming racial slurs over and over and over and over?
Clubs stopped hiring him so basically he was found guilty of hate speech and banned, just like youtube does!
OH NO SLIPPERY SLOPE.
You can say how you hate black people and gays all you want.
You can't force Google to say it for you.
If you're referring to countries like Canada that actually DO have hate speech laws, it's a lot more rigidly defined than Google (Except Manitoba, but even their own courts throw all those cases out as unconstitutional, and make (unheeded) demands that the provincial government fix them).
As in, to be hate speech, your speech has to be speech that will cause violence or hatred of the group you are targetting.
And judges have interpreted that quite narrowly.
As in, if you say "GOD HATES FAGS, BURN IN HELL HOMOS" that has time and again been affirmed as not hate-speech, as nobody hearing that would start hating gays if they didn't already, and nobody would read it and go beat up a gay person if they weren't going to already.
It's also been held as allowed because the hate speech law has exemptions for anything that is true, or said in good faith.
A preacher believes what he says, and so it's protected speech.
If he actually calls for violence though, that's a different beast, and it doesn't matter if he believes beating gays to death is God's will or not.
As for the Australian law, the Australians have passed a law banning porn that features cartoons (because you can't tell how old a cartoon is so basically its all child porn), female ejaculation (because it's obscene) and women with small breasts (As underage teens also have smaller breasts, and so seeing women with less than a D cup may cause people to turn into pedophiles).
There is currently no word on if they eventually plan to ban having actual consensual sex with adults with small breasts, or if you will be OK as long as you don't film it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100542</id>
	<title>Re:Google still not evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265908140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, there are constantly things like this were Google seems to be standing behind its principle of "Don't be evil". I hope that they never forget it.</p></div><p>I think Google is just being pragmatic. In the long run they don't want to have to hire scores of people to police all the different jurisdictions around the world. Also, they don't want governments all around the world arbitrarily making up rules to limit Google's resources and profitability. Google is big enough that they can be listened to. If they lose a few million dollars in potential profits along the way it won't really bother the executives that much, but if they keep bending over to every political whim of the dictatorships and the authoritarian democracies then their economic and popular status will dwindle.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , there are constantly things like this were Google seems to be standing behind its principle of " Do n't be evil " .
I hope that they never forget it.I think Google is just being pragmatic .
In the long run they do n't want to have to hire scores of people to police all the different jurisdictions around the world .
Also , they do n't want governments all around the world arbitrarily making up rules to limit Google 's resources and profitability .
Google is big enough that they can be listened to .
If they lose a few million dollars in potential profits along the way it wo n't really bother the executives that much , but if they keep bending over to every political whim of the dictatorships and the authoritarian democracies then their economic and popular status will dwindle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, there are constantly things like this were Google seems to be standing behind its principle of "Don't be evil".
I hope that they never forget it.I think Google is just being pragmatic.
In the long run they don't want to have to hire scores of people to police all the different jurisdictions around the world.
Also, they don't want governments all around the world arbitrarily making up rules to limit Google's resources and profitability.
Google is big enough that they can be listened to.
If they lose a few million dollars in potential profits along the way it won't really bother the executives that much, but if they keep bending over to every political whim of the dictatorships and the authoritarian democracies then their economic and popular status will dwindle.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100832</id>
	<title>Re:This is getting interesting!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265909640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the central issue here is that people view the internet as a commodity, and use it as they would a tool. They don't see their usage as part of a message, or to have intrinsic meaning.</p><p>As an analogy, let's talk about my car buying habits. I buy American. I've had 4 Chevys over the past 4 years. They didn't break down, I just went through them for various reasons. And I loved them all. In particular I miss the Cobalt, it was nice.</p><p>But then there are people who have been driving the same Volvo for the past 30 odd years. Or have cars that they've personally put 300,000 miles on. That's great. That was a sound economical investment.</p><p>But what was the message? It was just a tool to them. How far can they drive for their investment? How many years and how many miles can they go before they need to put in more money? Their message was that the car was a tool, just a means to an end.</p><p>My cars were the ends. I could work on them (I miss the old Corvette, spewing coolant like some B movie gore flick), they were fun to drive, and they were each a learning experience. I didn't buy them to get me any further than into the driver's seat.</p><p>Now look at the internet. For many of the people here, it's the ends. They work in an online business, or they have a vested interest in the underlying technologies (hardware or software) and furthering their knowledge of the internal workings thereof is their real intent. Honestly, how many of us have internet to check Slashdot? Slashdot is a nice bonus, but we don't have internet just to check Slashdot. Slashdot is not our ends.</p><p>But that's what the internet is to "normal people." It's just a tool they use to check Facebook or Twitter or their AOL email. They use the internet like some people use their cars, to get where they're going. They don't buy the car because it's American made and it'll support their fellow countrymen and they can work on it themselves and so on and so forth. They buy the car because they want to get to work, or school or the football game. It's just a car.</p><p>And that's the problem. To some people, it's just the internet. It's not a technology that has revolutionized the entire world. It's just the way to get where they want to be. Like a car.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the central issue here is that people view the internet as a commodity , and use it as they would a tool .
They do n't see their usage as part of a message , or to have intrinsic meaning.As an analogy , let 's talk about my car buying habits .
I buy American .
I 've had 4 Chevys over the past 4 years .
They did n't break down , I just went through them for various reasons .
And I loved them all .
In particular I miss the Cobalt , it was nice.But then there are people who have been driving the same Volvo for the past 30 odd years .
Or have cars that they 've personally put 300,000 miles on .
That 's great .
That was a sound economical investment.But what was the message ?
It was just a tool to them .
How far can they drive for their investment ?
How many years and how many miles can they go before they need to put in more money ?
Their message was that the car was a tool , just a means to an end.My cars were the ends .
I could work on them ( I miss the old Corvette , spewing coolant like some B movie gore flick ) , they were fun to drive , and they were each a learning experience .
I did n't buy them to get me any further than into the driver 's seat.Now look at the internet .
For many of the people here , it 's the ends .
They work in an online business , or they have a vested interest in the underlying technologies ( hardware or software ) and furthering their knowledge of the internal workings thereof is their real intent .
Honestly , how many of us have internet to check Slashdot ?
Slashdot is a nice bonus , but we do n't have internet just to check Slashdot .
Slashdot is not our ends.But that 's what the internet is to " normal people .
" It 's just a tool they use to check Facebook or Twitter or their AOL email .
They use the internet like some people use their cars , to get where they 're going .
They do n't buy the car because it 's American made and it 'll support their fellow countrymen and they can work on it themselves and so on and so forth .
They buy the car because they want to get to work , or school or the football game .
It 's just a car.And that 's the problem .
To some people , it 's just the internet .
It 's not a technology that has revolutionized the entire world .
It 's just the way to get where they want to be .
Like a car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the central issue here is that people view the internet as a commodity, and use it as they would a tool.
They don't see their usage as part of a message, or to have intrinsic meaning.As an analogy, let's talk about my car buying habits.
I buy American.
I've had 4 Chevys over the past 4 years.
They didn't break down, I just went through them for various reasons.
And I loved them all.
In particular I miss the Cobalt, it was nice.But then there are people who have been driving the same Volvo for the past 30 odd years.
Or have cars that they've personally put 300,000 miles on.
That's great.
That was a sound economical investment.But what was the message?
It was just a tool to them.
How far can they drive for their investment?
How many years and how many miles can they go before they need to put in more money?
Their message was that the car was a tool, just a means to an end.My cars were the ends.
I could work on them (I miss the old Corvette, spewing coolant like some B movie gore flick), they were fun to drive, and they were each a learning experience.
I didn't buy them to get me any further than into the driver's seat.Now look at the internet.
For many of the people here, it's the ends.
They work in an online business, or they have a vested interest in the underlying technologies (hardware or software) and furthering their knowledge of the internal workings thereof is their real intent.
Honestly, how many of us have internet to check Slashdot?
Slashdot is a nice bonus, but we don't have internet just to check Slashdot.
Slashdot is not our ends.But that's what the internet is to "normal people.
" It's just a tool they use to check Facebook or Twitter or their AOL email.
They use the internet like some people use their cars, to get where they're going.
They don't buy the car because it's American made and it'll support their fellow countrymen and they can work on it themselves and so on and so forth.
They buy the car because they want to get to work, or school or the football game.
It's just a car.And that's the problem.
To some people, it's just the internet.
It's not a technology that has revolutionized the entire world.
It's just the way to get where they want to be.
Like a car.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31102752</id>
	<title>Four in four years?!</title>
	<author>SteveFoerster</author>
	<datestamp>1265917980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>I've had 4 Chevys over the past 4 years. They didn't break down, I just went through them for various reasons. And I loved them all. In particular I miss the Cobalt, it was nice.</em></p><p>Four in four years, without breakdowns?  One was hit by a meteor, one was destroyed by a UFO when you were abducted by aliens, one was sucked into an interdimensional vortex, and one was stolen by Neil Patrick Harris?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had 4 Chevys over the past 4 years .
They did n't break down , I just went through them for various reasons .
And I loved them all .
In particular I miss the Cobalt , it was nice.Four in four years , without breakdowns ?
One was hit by a meteor , one was destroyed by a UFO when you were abducted by aliens , one was sucked into an interdimensional vortex , and one was stolen by Neil Patrick Harris ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had 4 Chevys over the past 4 years.
They didn't break down, I just went through them for various reasons.
And I loved them all.
In particular I miss the Cobalt, it was nice.Four in four years, without breakdowns?
One was hit by a meteor, one was destroyed by a UFO when you were abducted by aliens, one was sucked into an interdimensional vortex, and one was stolen by Neil Patrick Harris?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100282</id>
	<title>Re:Google still not evil</title>
	<author>garcia</author>
	<datestamp>1265907060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>However, there are constantly things like this were Google seems to be standing behind its principle of "Don't be evil". I hope that they never forget it.</i></p><p>I think there's a difference between "doing no evil," and deciding that they don't want to police the Internet for specific countries. I have a feeling that while their words say one thing, this has less to do with their mantra than the simple fact that they have better things to waste their time doing than the bidding of Australia's ridiculous government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , there are constantly things like this were Google seems to be standing behind its principle of " Do n't be evil " .
I hope that they never forget it.I think there 's a difference between " doing no evil , " and deciding that they do n't want to police the Internet for specific countries .
I have a feeling that while their words say one thing , this has less to do with their mantra than the simple fact that they have better things to waste their time doing than the bidding of Australia 's ridiculous government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, there are constantly things like this were Google seems to be standing behind its principle of "Don't be evil".
I hope that they never forget it.I think there's a difference between "doing no evil," and deciding that they don't want to police the Internet for specific countries.
I have a feeling that while their words say one thing, this has less to do with their mantra than the simple fact that they have better things to waste their time doing than the bidding of Australia's ridiculous government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31104308</id>
	<title>Re:Google deserves a little praise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265880480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I'm not saying anyone should "trust" Google, I'm just saying that the company deserves a little praise for its effort. An effort that most companies here in the US don't even attempt to make.</p></div><p>Good point.  Like any large company, Google probably has employees who want to do things you dislike, and others who see the world as you do.  When you treat them as guilty of doing bad thinks because they might do bad things, the people you disagree with will say "The tiny minority of people who care already hate us.  They give us no credit when we do things they like.  There is no point trying to make them happy.".  This is a powerful argument.  Don't enable it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not saying anyone should " trust " Google , I 'm just saying that the company deserves a little praise for its effort .
An effort that most companies here in the US do n't even attempt to make.Good point .
Like any large company , Google probably has employees who want to do things you dislike , and others who see the world as you do .
When you treat them as guilty of doing bad thinks because they might do bad things , the people you disagree with will say " The tiny minority of people who care already hate us .
They give us no credit when we do things they like .
There is no point trying to make them happy. " .
This is a powerful argument .
Do n't enable it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'm not saying anyone should "trust" Google, I'm just saying that the company deserves a little praise for its effort.
An effort that most companies here in the US don't even attempt to make.Good point.
Like any large company, Google probably has employees who want to do things you dislike, and others who see the world as you do.
When you treat them as guilty of doing bad thinks because they might do bad things, the people you disagree with will say "The tiny minority of people who care already hate us.
They give us no credit when we do things they like.
There is no point trying to make them happy.".
This is a powerful argument.
Don't enable it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31105438</id>
	<title>Re:What is hate speech?</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1265884800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>  I am not a member or supporter in anyway of the KKK, Nazis, etc., but why is
  certain speech categorized as "hate" and therefore not allowed to be even
  stated? Who decides what is hate? That whole movement makes me nervous...</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
It's a perfectly rational response to the evils of WWII. The Nazi movement(s) are outlawed in many countries to prevent sympathisers from re-organizing. After WWII, many fascists simply blended in with the population, and could not be prosecuted, but they still exist (and teach their children etc).
</p><p>
If Nazi parties (and speech promoting them) were allowed by law to exist, then the fascists would in time recreate a clear and present danger to the world, so instead this kind of speech is simply outlawed. The advantage of outlawing Nazism is that as long as it is outlawed, these organizations are stuck on the fringes, where they cannot grow beyond a small size without being detected.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not a member or supporter in anyway of the KKK , Nazis , etc. , but why is certain speech categorized as " hate " and therefore not allowed to be even stated ?
Who decides what is hate ?
That whole movement makes me nervous.. . It 's a perfectly rational response to the evils of WWII .
The Nazi movement ( s ) are outlawed in many countries to prevent sympathisers from re-organizing .
After WWII , many fascists simply blended in with the population , and could not be prosecuted , but they still exist ( and teach their children etc ) .
If Nazi parties ( and speech promoting them ) were allowed by law to exist , then the fascists would in time recreate a clear and present danger to the world , so instead this kind of speech is simply outlawed .
The advantage of outlawing Nazism is that as long as it is outlawed , these organizations are stuck on the fringes , where they can not grow beyond a small size without being detected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  I am not a member or supporter in anyway of the KKK, Nazis, etc., but why is
  certain speech categorized as "hate" and therefore not allowed to be even
  stated?
Who decides what is hate?
That whole movement makes me nervous...

It's a perfectly rational response to the evils of WWII.
The Nazi movement(s) are outlawed in many countries to prevent sympathisers from re-organizing.
After WWII, many fascists simply blended in with the population, and could not be prosecuted, but they still exist (and teach their children etc).
If Nazi parties (and speech promoting them) were allowed by law to exist, then the fascists would in time recreate a clear and present danger to the world, so instead this kind of speech is simply outlawed.
The advantage of outlawing Nazism is that as long as it is outlawed, these organizations are stuck on the fringes, where they cannot grow beyond a small size without being detected.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100836</id>
	<title>Re:This is getting interesting!</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1265909640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Also worrying is the fact that YouTube considers itself infrastructure for "free speech". What if they decide to broaden their definitions of "hate speech" and "pornography"?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Who cares?  If you can't find enough hate speech and pornography elsewhere on the internet, you're really not trying.
<br>
Just because YouTube is big and popular doesn't mean it's the whole internet.  It's like complaining that the Disney Channel is engaging in censorship by not showing hard core pr0n and horror movies. They're commercial organisations, it's up to them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also worrying is the fact that YouTube considers itself infrastructure for " free speech " .
What if they decide to broaden their definitions of " hate speech " and " pornography " ?
Who cares ?
If you ca n't find enough hate speech and pornography elsewhere on the internet , you 're really not trying .
Just because YouTube is big and popular does n't mean it 's the whole internet .
It 's like complaining that the Disney Channel is engaging in censorship by not showing hard core pr0n and horror movies .
They 're commercial organisations , it 's up to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also worrying is the fact that YouTube considers itself infrastructure for "free speech".
What if they decide to broaden their definitions of "hate speech" and "pornography"?
Who cares?
If you can't find enough hate speech and pornography elsewhere on the internet, you're really not trying.
Just because YouTube is big and popular doesn't mean it's the whole internet.
It's like complaining that the Disney Channel is engaging in censorship by not showing hard core pr0n and horror movies.
They're commercial organisations, it's up to them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31105516</id>
	<title>Re: Can an Australian brother...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265885100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Senator freaking Conroy and his stupid excuse of "Protecting the Children." It's bollocks. He's even stated himself that it's impossible to do, yet he's pushing forward with it.</p><p>Stupid politicians, wouldn't trust them with my kids.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Senator freaking Conroy and his stupid excuse of " Protecting the Children .
" It 's bollocks .
He 's even stated himself that it 's impossible to do , yet he 's pushing forward with it.Stupid politicians , would n't trust them with my kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Senator freaking Conroy and his stupid excuse of "Protecting the Children.
" It's bollocks.
He's even stated himself that it's impossible to do, yet he's pushing forward with it.Stupid politicians, wouldn't trust them with my kids.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31103100</id>
	<title>Re:Can an Australian brother...</title>
	<author>stimpleton</author>
	<datestamp>1265919060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't confuse laid-back with liberal. Australia is laid back, but is also one of the most conservative populaces. There are oasis of left wing attitudes in say Melbourne. <br> <br>
In the US, the Rosa Parks seat-on-a-bus incident took place in the 50's. In Australia the film <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romper\_Stomper" title="wikipedia.org">Romper Stomper</a> [wikipedia.org] is based around events in the 1990's. Consider that film and the Cronulla Riots where average joe office workers left their desks and stormed a Sydney beach all because of an altercation between some immigrants and some life guards. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005\_Cronulla\_riots" title="wikipedia.org">Cronulla beach riots</a> [wikipedia.org] happened in 2005.<br> <br>Australia <i>is</i> conservative, not just its adminsistration.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't confuse laid-back with liberal .
Australia is laid back , but is also one of the most conservative populaces .
There are oasis of left wing attitudes in say Melbourne .
In the US , the Rosa Parks seat-on-a-bus incident took place in the 50 's .
In Australia the film Romper Stomper [ wikipedia.org ] is based around events in the 1990 's .
Consider that film and the Cronulla Riots where average joe office workers left their desks and stormed a Sydney beach all because of an altercation between some immigrants and some life guards .
The Cronulla beach riots [ wikipedia.org ] happened in 2005 .
Australia is conservative , not just its adminsistration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't confuse laid-back with liberal.
Australia is laid back, but is also one of the most conservative populaces.
There are oasis of left wing attitudes in say Melbourne.
In the US, the Rosa Parks seat-on-a-bus incident took place in the 50's.
In Australia the film Romper Stomper [wikipedia.org] is based around events in the 1990's.
Consider that film and the Cronulla Riots where average joe office workers left their desks and stormed a Sydney beach all because of an altercation between some immigrants and some life guards.
The Cronulla beach riots [wikipedia.org] happened in 2005.
Australia is conservative, not just its adminsistration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31102108</id>
	<title>Re:This is getting interesting!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265916060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow.  A car analogy that is actually apropos.</p><p>My hat is off to you sir.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
A car analogy that is actually apropos.My hat is off to you sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
A car analogy that is actually apropos.My hat is off to you sir.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100354</id>
	<title>The Streisand effect</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265907360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't any attempt to ban a clip just going to send the view count for that clip way up? Where is the list of clips that the Australian government doesn't think I should see, I want to watch them all... over and over again!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't any attempt to ban a clip just going to send the view count for that clip way up ?
Where is the list of clips that the Australian government does n't think I should see , I want to watch them all... over and over again !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't any attempt to ban a clip just going to send the view count for that clip way up?
Where is the list of clips that the Australian government doesn't think I should see, I want to watch them all... over and over again!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31102788</id>
	<title>Re:This is getting interesting!</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1265918100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To some people, it's just the internet. It's not a technology that has revolutionized the entire world. (...) Like a car.</p></div><p>And the wheel was not a revolution, you could always walk and carry what you needed. If neither Internet nor cars is a revolution, despite affecting more than a billion people of all ages in almost every profession, then I'd like you to list all the technical revolutions in human history. Will that require one hand to count or two?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To some people , it 's just the internet .
It 's not a technology that has revolutionized the entire world .
( ... ) Like a car.And the wheel was not a revolution , you could always walk and carry what you needed .
If neither Internet nor cars is a revolution , despite affecting more than a billion people of all ages in almost every profession , then I 'd like you to list all the technical revolutions in human history .
Will that require one hand to count or two ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To some people, it's just the internet.
It's not a technology that has revolutionized the entire world.
(...) Like a car.And the wheel was not a revolution, you could always walk and carry what you needed.
If neither Internet nor cars is a revolution, despite affecting more than a billion people of all ages in almost every profession, then I'd like you to list all the technical revolutions in human history.
Will that require one hand to count or two?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100408</id>
	<title>Google deserves a little praise</title>
	<author>BountyX</author>
	<datestamp>1265907540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know many people on slashdot have mistrust for Google becuase the sheer amount of data they possess is a looming liability and their "don't be evil" mantra may not always pan out. One thing I wanted to point out is that Google at least makes an effort and a global effort at that. They are probably one of the few companies to have a Chief Culture Officer whose job is dedicated to issues of morality, culture, and ethics. I'm not saying anyone should "trust" Google, I'm just saying that the company deserves a little praise for its effort. An effort that most companies here in the US don't even attempt to make.

Although in the long run Google may in fact be a liability, it doesn't change the fact that they represent a cultural step in the right direction for corporate ethics, especially given their size and power.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know many people on slashdot have mistrust for Google becuase the sheer amount of data they possess is a looming liability and their " do n't be evil " mantra may not always pan out .
One thing I wanted to point out is that Google at least makes an effort and a global effort at that .
They are probably one of the few companies to have a Chief Culture Officer whose job is dedicated to issues of morality , culture , and ethics .
I 'm not saying anyone should " trust " Google , I 'm just saying that the company deserves a little praise for its effort .
An effort that most companies here in the US do n't even attempt to make .
Although in the long run Google may in fact be a liability , it does n't change the fact that they represent a cultural step in the right direction for corporate ethics , especially given their size and power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know many people on slashdot have mistrust for Google becuase the sheer amount of data they possess is a looming liability and their "don't be evil" mantra may not always pan out.
One thing I wanted to point out is that Google at least makes an effort and a global effort at that.
They are probably one of the few companies to have a Chief Culture Officer whose job is dedicated to issues of morality, culture, and ethics.
I'm not saying anyone should "trust" Google, I'm just saying that the company deserves a little praise for its effort.
An effort that most companies here in the US don't even attempt to make.
Although in the long run Google may in fact be a liability, it doesn't change the fact that they represent a cultural step in the right direction for corporate ethics, especially given their size and power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100798</id>
	<title>Re:What is hate speech?</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1265909460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Hate speech" is a term invented by EU governments to allow them to censor their populace. The term does not have legal meaning in the US, where freedom of speech is considered unalienable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hate speech " is a term invented by EU governments to allow them to censor their populace .
The term does not have legal meaning in the US , where freedom of speech is considered unalienable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Hate speech" is a term invented by EU governments to allow them to censor their populace.
The term does not have legal meaning in the US, where freedom of speech is considered unalienable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31110036</id>
	<title>Re:Can an Australian brother...</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1265916180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Australia is laid back, but is also one of the most conservative populaces. There are oasis of left wing attitudes in say Melbourne.</i>
</p><p>Huh ?  What relevance does an "oasis of left wing attitudes" have to do with conservatism and censoring porn ?  Those are right-wing policies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Australia is laid back , but is also one of the most conservative populaces .
There are oasis of left wing attitudes in say Melbourne .
Huh ?
What relevance does an " oasis of left wing attitudes " have to do with conservatism and censoring porn ?
Those are right-wing policies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Australia is laid back, but is also one of the most conservative populaces.
There are oasis of left wing attitudes in say Melbourne.
Huh ?
What relevance does an "oasis of left wing attitudes" have to do with conservatism and censoring porn ?
Those are right-wing policies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31103100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31106510</id>
	<title>Re:Can an Australian brother...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265889060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately it's a frying pan / fire type.  So long as Australian's fool themselves into thinking that a vote for a minor party is a vote wasted (which demonstrates a remarkable lack of understanding of our preferential voting system, but that's beside the point) then we are restricted to two options: Tony "virgin until marriage" Abbot and his band of conservative climate-change-is-all-in-the-mind, privatise-or-perish "liberal" party or the current mob.  So what we have is currently the lesser (by the slimmest of margins) of two evils.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately it 's a frying pan / fire type .
So long as Australian 's fool themselves into thinking that a vote for a minor party is a vote wasted ( which demonstrates a remarkable lack of understanding of our preferential voting system , but that 's beside the point ) then we are restricted to two options : Tony " virgin until marriage " Abbot and his band of conservative climate-change-is-all-in-the-mind , privatise-or-perish " liberal " party or the current mob .
So what we have is currently the lesser ( by the slimmest of margins ) of two evils .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately it's a frying pan / fire type.
So long as Australian's fool themselves into thinking that a vote for a minor party is a vote wasted (which demonstrates a remarkable lack of understanding of our preferential voting system, but that's beside the point) then we are restricted to two options: Tony "virgin until marriage" Abbot and his band of conservative climate-change-is-all-in-the-mind, privatise-or-perish "liberal" party or the current mob.
So what we have is currently the lesser (by the slimmest of margins) of two evils.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31110080</id>
	<title>Re:What is hate speech?</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1265916900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I am not a member or supporter in anyway of the KKK, Nazis, etc., but why is certain speech categorized as "hate" and therefore not allowed to be even stated?</i>
</p><p>Because it serves no purpose other than to incite hatred of, and aggression towards, particular stereotypes.
</p><p> <i>Who decides what is hate?</i>
</p><p>A jury of your peers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not a member or supporter in anyway of the KKK , Nazis , etc. , but why is certain speech categorized as " hate " and therefore not allowed to be even stated ?
Because it serves no purpose other than to incite hatred of , and aggression towards , particular stereotypes .
Who decides what is hate ?
A jury of your peers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I am not a member or supporter in anyway of the KKK, Nazis, etc., but why is certain speech categorized as "hate" and therefore not allowed to be even stated?
Because it serves no purpose other than to incite hatred of, and aggression towards, particular stereotypes.
Who decides what is hate?
A jury of your peers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100096</id>
	<title>sigh</title>
	<author>the3stars</author>
	<datestamp>1265906280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>America should start sending their idiot conservatives like Palin and Limbaugh to Australia. This worldwide surge of stupid "won't someone think of the children and our values (while padding our bank accounts)" is washing up on too many shores lately.</htmltext>
<tokenext>America should start sending their idiot conservatives like Palin and Limbaugh to Australia .
This worldwide surge of stupid " wo n't someone think of the children and our values ( while padding our bank accounts ) " is washing up on too many shores lately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>America should start sending their idiot conservatives like Palin and Limbaugh to Australia.
This worldwide surge of stupid "won't someone think of the children and our values (while padding our bank accounts)" is washing up on too many shores lately.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101136</id>
	<title>Re:Can an Australian brother...</title>
	<author>Zarath</author>
	<datestamp>1265911440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back in 07 when Australia was deciding between our two primary parties, the current government (Labor) used a policy of an opt-in filter system. This system was going to replace the method used by the old government, which didn't work at all (computer-side filters) because people could bypass them fairly easily. Not as easily as this though.

Moving on about 1 yeah from when they were elected in, their policy suddenly changed. No longer was it an opt-in system, it was now compulsory for -everyone- to be filtered. And there would be a secondary opt-in filter that would block all porn. From that, they've continued on their censoring rampage.

Unfortunately, the current government doesn't seem to listen to its people at all. And a lot of Australians are ignorant and blind. As long as someone says "it's to block child porn" they agree with it. When explained properly, almost everyone says it's stupid.

Our government is up for election again soon, I can only hope that people will wake up and see what's happening... But I'm not holding my breath. Both governments are terrible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in 07 when Australia was deciding between our two primary parties , the current government ( Labor ) used a policy of an opt-in filter system .
This system was going to replace the method used by the old government , which did n't work at all ( computer-side filters ) because people could bypass them fairly easily .
Not as easily as this though .
Moving on about 1 yeah from when they were elected in , their policy suddenly changed .
No longer was it an opt-in system , it was now compulsory for -everyone- to be filtered .
And there would be a secondary opt-in filter that would block all porn .
From that , they 've continued on their censoring rampage .
Unfortunately , the current government does n't seem to listen to its people at all .
And a lot of Australians are ignorant and blind .
As long as someone says " it 's to block child porn " they agree with it .
When explained properly , almost everyone says it 's stupid .
Our government is up for election again soon , I can only hope that people will wake up and see what 's happening... But I 'm not holding my breath .
Both governments are terrible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in 07 when Australia was deciding between our two primary parties, the current government (Labor) used a policy of an opt-in filter system.
This system was going to replace the method used by the old government, which didn't work at all (computer-side filters) because people could bypass them fairly easily.
Not as easily as this though.
Moving on about 1 yeah from when they were elected in, their policy suddenly changed.
No longer was it an opt-in system, it was now compulsory for -everyone- to be filtered.
And there would be a secondary opt-in filter that would block all porn.
From that, they've continued on their censoring rampage.
Unfortunately, the current government doesn't seem to listen to its people at all.
And a lot of Australians are ignorant and blind.
As long as someone says "it's to block child porn" they agree with it.
When explained properly, almost everyone says it's stupid.
Our government is up for election again soon, I can only hope that people will wake up and see what's happening... But I'm not holding my breath.
Both governments are terrible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100132</id>
	<title>Re:Can an Australian brother...</title>
	<author>AlexiaDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1265906460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Im amazed as well. Im wondering if someone at the top has some mental issues that have gone unnoticed a and a lot of influence to get others to agree to this insanity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Im amazed as well .
Im wondering if someone at the top has some mental issues that have gone unnoticed a and a lot of influence to get others to agree to this insanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Im amazed as well.
Im wondering if someone at the top has some mental issues that have gone unnoticed a and a lot of influence to get others to agree to this insanity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100268</id>
	<title>Re:This is getting interesting!</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1265907000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Expect a corporation to look after its own interests.</p><p>Take it as a happy surprise when one looks after yours.</p><p>Don't rely on the corporation to look after your interests.</p><p>It isn't much of a puzzle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Expect a corporation to look after its own interests.Take it as a happy surprise when one looks after yours.Do n't rely on the corporation to look after your interests.It is n't much of a puzzle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Expect a corporation to look after its own interests.Take it as a happy surprise when one looks after yours.Don't rely on the corporation to look after your interests.It isn't much of a puzzle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100848</id>
	<title>Re:This is getting interesting!</title>
	<author>Mitchell314</author>
	<datestamp>1265909700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Get of my lawn"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Get of my lawn "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Get of my lawn"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100666</id>
	<title>Re:This is getting interesting!</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1265908800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Replying to undo a bad mod.  Sorry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Replying to undo a bad mod .
Sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Replying to undo a bad mod.
Sorry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100490</id>
	<title>Re:sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265907840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We can't just keep sending our problems to Australia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We ca n't just keep sending our problems to Australia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can't just keep sending our problems to Australia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31105294</id>
	<title>Re:This is getting interesting!</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1265884320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And that's the problem. To some people, it's just the internet. It's not a technology that has revolutionized the entire world. It's just the way to get where they want to be. Like a car.</p></div> </blockquote><p>The Internet is not a car. The Internet is the very concept of a road itself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And that 's the problem .
To some people , it 's just the internet .
It 's not a technology that has revolutionized the entire world .
It 's just the way to get where they want to be .
Like a car .
The Internet is not a car .
The Internet is the very concept of a road itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that's the problem.
To some people, it's just the internet.
It's not a technology that has revolutionized the entire world.
It's just the way to get where they want to be.
Like a car.
The Internet is not a car.
The Internet is the very concept of a road itself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099984</id>
	<title>Just a ruse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265905800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is leading you into a false sense of security.</p><p>CAPTCHA is "Verily"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is leading you into a false sense of security.CAPTCHA is " Verily "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is leading you into a false sense of security.CAPTCHA is "Verily"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31110480</id>
	<title>Re:sigh</title>
	<author>the3stars</author>
	<datestamp>1265966520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>troll? I'm glad someone got my point, this is all about trolling. The GOP is a massive troll organization, as evidenced by their recent 'census' money grab. The party is all about con'troll'ing free thought and replacing it with empty values while profiting off of the whole deal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>troll ?
I 'm glad someone got my point , this is all about trolling .
The GOP is a massive troll organization , as evidenced by their recent 'census ' money grab .
The party is all about con'troll'ing free thought and replacing it with empty values while profiting off of the whole deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>troll?
I'm glad someone got my point, this is all about trolling.
The GOP is a massive troll organization, as evidenced by their recent 'census' money grab.
The party is all about con'troll'ing free thought and replacing it with empty values while profiting off of the whole deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000</id>
	<title>Can an Australian brother...</title>
	<author>gravyface</author>
	<datestamp>1265905800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>explain to me what a) brought on these draconian laws/ideals b) what the opposition is doing against it?  I've always (maybe naively) thought of Australia as a laid-back and liberal kind of a place.  This censorship movement seems... odd.</htmltext>
<tokenext>explain to me what a ) brought on these draconian laws/ideals b ) what the opposition is doing against it ?
I 've always ( maybe naively ) thought of Australia as a laid-back and liberal kind of a place .
This censorship movement seems... odd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>explain to me what a) brought on these draconian laws/ideals b) what the opposition is doing against it?
I've always (maybe naively) thought of Australia as a laid-back and liberal kind of a place.
This censorship movement seems... odd.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31107788</id>
	<title>Re:I guess Google's gonna have to pull out of</title>
	<author>timmmaay</author>
	<datestamp>1265894760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a lot of commentary about Google here but my concern is that Australian's seem to have gone to sleep and awoken up in China, or worse North Korea, since the last election. Howard needed to go, Abbott is not a good alternative but the Ruddinator's lackeys are going to turn us into even more of an information backwater if they continue unchecked. The policies being pushed in Australia of late are very concerning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a lot of commentary about Google here but my concern is that Australian 's seem to have gone to sleep and awoken up in China , or worse North Korea , since the last election .
Howard needed to go , Abbott is not a good alternative but the Ruddinator 's lackeys are going to turn us into even more of an information backwater if they continue unchecked .
The policies being pushed in Australia of late are very concerning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a lot of commentary about Google here but my concern is that Australian's seem to have gone to sleep and awoken up in China, or worse North Korea, since the last election.
Howard needed to go, Abbott is not a good alternative but the Ruddinator's lackeys are going to turn us into even more of an information backwater if they continue unchecked.
The policies being pushed in Australia of late are very concerning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101326</id>
	<title>Re:What is hate speech?</title>
	<author>swb</author>
	<datestamp>1265912400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a nonsense term dreamed up by the left to politically marginalize and in some cases criminalize political speech they are opposed to.  In the US, anyway, it is closely related to "hate crimes" which are structured in a way such that the only victims are non-whites and the only perpetrators are white males.</p><p>It is the byproduct of Western leftist political thinking on the concept of racism that generally holds only whites (usually males) culpable for racism and discrimination, despite ample evidence for non-white racism domestically in the U.S. (eg, Hispanics and Blacks) and globally (Arabs v. Black Africans, ethnic Indians versus non-Indian races, ethnic Asians versus others).</p><p>Taking the concept of "hate speech" and/or "hate crimes" at face value, most fundamentalist religious leaders (of all religions) should fit, yet religion seems to escape scrutiny, as do quite a few shocking black-on-white and black-on-other-race crimes despite overwhelming evidence that victims were targeted because of their race.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a nonsense term dreamed up by the left to politically marginalize and in some cases criminalize political speech they are opposed to .
In the US , anyway , it is closely related to " hate crimes " which are structured in a way such that the only victims are non-whites and the only perpetrators are white males.It is the byproduct of Western leftist political thinking on the concept of racism that generally holds only whites ( usually males ) culpable for racism and discrimination , despite ample evidence for non-white racism domestically in the U.S. ( eg , Hispanics and Blacks ) and globally ( Arabs v. Black Africans , ethnic Indians versus non-Indian races , ethnic Asians versus others ) .Taking the concept of " hate speech " and/or " hate crimes " at face value , most fundamentalist religious leaders ( of all religions ) should fit , yet religion seems to escape scrutiny , as do quite a few shocking black-on-white and black-on-other-race crimes despite overwhelming evidence that victims were targeted because of their race .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a nonsense term dreamed up by the left to politically marginalize and in some cases criminalize political speech they are opposed to.
In the US, anyway, it is closely related to "hate crimes" which are structured in a way such that the only victims are non-whites and the only perpetrators are white males.It is the byproduct of Western leftist political thinking on the concept of racism that generally holds only whites (usually males) culpable for racism and discrimination, despite ample evidence for non-white racism domestically in the U.S. (eg, Hispanics and Blacks) and globally (Arabs v. Black Africans, ethnic Indians versus non-Indian races, ethnic Asians versus others).Taking the concept of "hate speech" and/or "hate crimes" at face value, most fundamentalist religious leaders (of all religions) should fit, yet religion seems to escape scrutiny, as do quite a few shocking black-on-white and black-on-other-race crimes despite overwhelming evidence that victims were targeted because of their race.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31110010</id>
	<title>Re:Can an Australian brother...</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1265915760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>explain to me what a) brought on these draconian laws/ideals [...]</i>
</p><p>Under the Liberals: because that's just what they do.
<br>Under Labor: buying off independents.
</p><p> <i>b) what the opposition is doing against it?</i>
</p><p>Publicly I'm sure they're condemning it as "unAustralian".  Privately, they'll be cheering it on, given they got the whole ball rolling.
</p><p> <i>I've always (maybe naively) thought of Australia as a laid-back and liberal kind of a place. This censorship movement seems... odd.</i>
</p><p>They're loud and proud, but ultimately a minority.  Most Australians will simply assume such stupid laws will never be enforced, and hence aren't worth getting upset about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>explain to me what a ) brought on these draconian laws/ideals [ ... ] Under the Liberals : because that 's just what they do .
Under Labor : buying off independents .
b ) what the opposition is doing against it ?
Publicly I 'm sure they 're condemning it as " unAustralian " .
Privately , they 'll be cheering it on , given they got the whole ball rolling .
I 've always ( maybe naively ) thought of Australia as a laid-back and liberal kind of a place .
This censorship movement seems... odd . They 're loud and proud , but ultimately a minority .
Most Australians will simply assume such stupid laws will never be enforced , and hence are n't worth getting upset about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> explain to me what a) brought on these draconian laws/ideals [...]
Under the Liberals: because that's just what they do.
Under Labor: buying off independents.
b) what the opposition is doing against it?
Publicly I'm sure they're condemning it as "unAustralian".
Privately, they'll be cheering it on, given they got the whole ball rolling.
I've always (maybe naively) thought of Australia as a laid-back and liberal kind of a place.
This censorship movement seems... odd.
They're loud and proud, but ultimately a minority.
Most Australians will simply assume such stupid laws will never be enforced, and hence aren't worth getting upset about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100884</id>
	<title>Re:Google still not evil</title>
	<author>bgarcia</author>
	<datestamp>1265910000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>especially the tracking that is inherent in their Chrome browser.</p></div><p>For more information about what information is tracked in Chrome, including instructions for disabling many of those features, read the <a href="http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/privacy.html" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Google Chrome Privacy Notice</a> [google.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>especially the tracking that is inherent in their Chrome browser.For more information about what information is tracked in Chrome , including instructions for disabling many of those features , read the Google Chrome Privacy Notice [ google.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>especially the tracking that is inherent in their Chrome browser.For more information about what information is tracked in Chrome, including instructions for disabling many of those features, read the Google Chrome Privacy Notice [google.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31108598</id>
	<title>Re:Can an Australian brother...</title>
	<author>deek</author>
	<datestamp>1265900400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't confuse pockets of racial behaviour to be reflective of the Australian populace in general.  I'm born Australian, from immigrant parents, coincidently of the same ethnic culture as those that triggered the Cronulla riots.  I think Australia is one of the best examples in the world of different cultures living together.  I wouldn't live anywhere else.</p><p>Now if we can only get rid of these politicians that have nanny state tendencies.  They seem to appear no matter what party we vote for.  As the old saying goes: same shit, different smell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't confuse pockets of racial behaviour to be reflective of the Australian populace in general .
I 'm born Australian , from immigrant parents , coincidently of the same ethnic culture as those that triggered the Cronulla riots .
I think Australia is one of the best examples in the world of different cultures living together .
I would n't live anywhere else.Now if we can only get rid of these politicians that have nanny state tendencies .
They seem to appear no matter what party we vote for .
As the old saying goes : same shit , different smell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't confuse pockets of racial behaviour to be reflective of the Australian populace in general.
I'm born Australian, from immigrant parents, coincidently of the same ethnic culture as those that triggered the Cronulla riots.
I think Australia is one of the best examples in the world of different cultures living together.
I wouldn't live anywhere else.Now if we can only get rid of these politicians that have nanny state tendencies.
They seem to appear no matter what party we vote for.
As the old saying goes: same shit, different smell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31103100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31109388</id>
	<title>Re:This Conroy guy?</title>
	<author>jobst</author>
	<datestamp>1265908080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>simple, don't vote Labor (or Kevin)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but then you need to vote for Tony "fuckwids" Abbott<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or is this what you mean?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>simple , do n't vote Labor ( or Kevin ) ... but then you need to vote for Tony " fuckwids " Abbott ... or is this what you mean ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>simple, don't vote Labor (or Kevin) ... but then you need to vote for Tony "fuckwids" Abbott ... or is this what you mean?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31105664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099810</id>
	<title>First?</title>
	<author>flurdy</author>
	<datestamp>1265905020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First post?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First post ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First post?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31106230</id>
	<title>Re:What is hate speech?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1265887860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know about hate speech, but your post should be banned for violating the laws of coherent writing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about hate speech , but your post should be banned for violating the laws of coherent writing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about hate speech, but your post should be banned for violating the laws of coherent writing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31104502</id>
	<title>Re:Can an Australian brother...</title>
	<author>SleazyRidr</author>
	<datestamp>1265881380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was always taught in school that because we were founded as a prison colony, the laws in place from the start were very strict. Everyone just got used to that being the way things were and no one has really produced a compelling argument to change it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was always taught in school that because we were founded as a prison colony , the laws in place from the start were very strict .
Everyone just got used to that being the way things were and no one has really produced a compelling argument to change it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was always taught in school that because we were founded as a prison colony, the laws in place from the start were very strict.
Everyone just got used to that being the way things were and no one has really produced a compelling argument to change it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31108218</id>
	<title>Re:Google still not evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265897460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FUD.</p><p>http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=114836</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FUD.http : //www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py ? hl = en&amp;answer = 114836</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FUD.http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en&amp;answer=114836</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100372</id>
	<title>Re:This is getting interesting!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265907480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Internet is supposed to be free. It is supposed to allow equal access to data by equal parties. The existence of megacorporations in this space undermines the original spirit of the Internet, and provides just another way to turn the once-egalitarian Internet into just another tilted media outlet like Fox News.</p></div><p>Private instituations on the Internet, much like those in reality, follow the same basic rules regarding free speech: there isn't any. They can restrict speech in any way they want, because you can just go somewhere else if you want to say something they won't allow.</p><p>Does this mean that the removal of all free speech within a private institution's reach will make them just or popular? Clearly quite the opposite. Does this mean that I support the subjugation of all free speech on the Internet to the control of private institutions, or even the creation of Internet "free speech zones?" Definitely not.</p><p>But to extoll the mantra of "all free speech everywhere no matter what and down with the corporations" as your answer to the situation is naive at best, some synonym for "stupid" at the worst.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Internet is supposed to be free .
It is supposed to allow equal access to data by equal parties .
The existence of megacorporations in this space undermines the original spirit of the Internet , and provides just another way to turn the once-egalitarian Internet into just another tilted media outlet like Fox News.Private instituations on the Internet , much like those in reality , follow the same basic rules regarding free speech : there is n't any .
They can restrict speech in any way they want , because you can just go somewhere else if you want to say something they wo n't allow.Does this mean that the removal of all free speech within a private institution 's reach will make them just or popular ?
Clearly quite the opposite .
Does this mean that I support the subjugation of all free speech on the Internet to the control of private institutions , or even the creation of Internet " free speech zones ?
" Definitely not.But to extoll the mantra of " all free speech everywhere no matter what and down with the corporations " as your answer to the situation is naive at best , some synonym for " stupid " at the worst .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Internet is supposed to be free.
It is supposed to allow equal access to data by equal parties.
The existence of megacorporations in this space undermines the original spirit of the Internet, and provides just another way to turn the once-egalitarian Internet into just another tilted media outlet like Fox News.Private instituations on the Internet, much like those in reality, follow the same basic rules regarding free speech: there isn't any.
They can restrict speech in any way they want, because you can just go somewhere else if you want to say something they won't allow.Does this mean that the removal of all free speech within a private institution's reach will make them just or popular?
Clearly quite the opposite.
Does this mean that I support the subjugation of all free speech on the Internet to the control of private institutions, or even the creation of Internet "free speech zones?
" Definitely not.But to extoll the mantra of "all free speech everywhere no matter what and down with the corporations" as your answer to the situation is naive at best, some synonym for "stupid" at the worst.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770</id>
	<title>This is getting interesting!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265904840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now that the Australian government finds itself to be on the same side than China on censorship, I hope their legislators take a second look on the path they have taken for a while, and this apply to a few other Western parliaments as well...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that the Australian government finds itself to be on the same side than China on censorship , I hope their legislators take a second look on the path they have taken for a while , and this apply to a few other Western parliaments as well.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that the Australian government finds itself to be on the same side than China on censorship, I hope their legislators take a second look on the path they have taken for a while, and this apply to a few other Western parliaments as well...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100938</id>
	<title>Re:Can an Australian brother...</title>
	<author>skirmish666</author>
	<datestamp>1265910180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Basically... our prime minister known here as K-Rudd is enforcing the "Won't someone think of the children?!?" act. IMO the way this came about is that our current PM who's party is by far the more liberal of the two main powers (interesting fact, the conservative opposition party is actually called the liberal party) got elected into government because he campaigned for the same issues as our previous conservative PM but with a more modern, less "old fuddy-duddy" &amp; slimy political appearance. The swinging conservative voter helped elect him because his policy didn't conflict with their ideals and the youth of Australia helped elect him because he wasn't a drooling 80 year old with a speech impediment who went for a daily "jog" in the countries national colours for the media.  Basically our old PM had will and enforced it. Sure, it made the average Joe's life hell and his CEO schoolmates life easy and that was his downfall - there's more average Joe's than CEOs. In reality the only thing that's changed in Australian politics is the work place relations, and even that's been a slow ongoing process. Meanwhile we're still trying to dig ourselves out of being a technological backwater...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically... our prime minister known here as K-Rudd is enforcing the " Wo n't someone think of the children ? ! ?
" act .
IMO the way this came about is that our current PM who 's party is by far the more liberal of the two main powers ( interesting fact , the conservative opposition party is actually called the liberal party ) got elected into government because he campaigned for the same issues as our previous conservative PM but with a more modern , less " old fuddy-duddy " &amp; slimy political appearance .
The swinging conservative voter helped elect him because his policy did n't conflict with their ideals and the youth of Australia helped elect him because he was n't a drooling 80 year old with a speech impediment who went for a daily " jog " in the countries national colours for the media .
Basically our old PM had will and enforced it .
Sure , it made the average Joe 's life hell and his CEO schoolmates life easy and that was his downfall - there 's more average Joe 's than CEOs .
In reality the only thing that 's changed in Australian politics is the work place relations , and even that 's been a slow ongoing process .
Meanwhile we 're still trying to dig ourselves out of being a technological backwater.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically... our prime minister known here as K-Rudd is enforcing the "Won't someone think of the children?!?
" act.
IMO the way this came about is that our current PM who's party is by far the more liberal of the two main powers (interesting fact, the conservative opposition party is actually called the liberal party) got elected into government because he campaigned for the same issues as our previous conservative PM but with a more modern, less "old fuddy-duddy" &amp; slimy political appearance.
The swinging conservative voter helped elect him because his policy didn't conflict with their ideals and the youth of Australia helped elect him because he wasn't a drooling 80 year old with a speech impediment who went for a daily "jog" in the countries national colours for the media.
Basically our old PM had will and enforced it.
Sure, it made the average Joe's life hell and his CEO schoolmates life easy and that was his downfall - there's more average Joe's than CEOs.
In reality the only thing that's changed in Australian politics is the work place relations, and even that's been a slow ongoing process.
Meanwhile we're still trying to dig ourselves out of being a technological backwater...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100092</id>
	<title>Next up:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265906220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google accuses Australia of Hacking its systems!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google accuses Australia of Hacking its systems !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google accuses Australia of Hacking its systems!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099774</id>
	<title>lazy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265904840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're probably trying to avoid work more than anything else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're probably trying to avoid work more than anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're probably trying to avoid work more than anything else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31102908</id>
	<title>Re:This is getting interesting!</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1265918460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For western civilisations, Australia has, imo, always been closer to China than the US in regards to freedom or at least in recent years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For western civilisations , Australia has , imo , always been closer to China than the US in regards to freedom or at least in recent years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For western civilisations, Australia has, imo, always been closer to China than the US in regards to freedom or at least in recent years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101486</id>
	<title>Simple</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1265913120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A: Lots of people don't vote and democracy has always been the dictatorship of the majority of voters. So the only people who vote are the people who care about things.
</p><p>B: Solving real problems is hard, porn is simple and it appeals to those who bother to vote.
</p><p>C: And how dare a person living in a country that invented the bleep AND the mosaic over the mouth of the person being bleeped say anything about anyone other country?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A : Lots of people do n't vote and democracy has always been the dictatorship of the majority of voters .
So the only people who vote are the people who care about things .
B : Solving real problems is hard , porn is simple and it appeals to those who bother to vote .
C : And how dare a person living in a country that invented the bleep AND the mosaic over the mouth of the person being bleeped say anything about anyone other country ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A: Lots of people don't vote and democracy has always been the dictatorship of the majority of voters.
So the only people who vote are the people who care about things.
B: Solving real problems is hard, porn is simple and it appeals to those who bother to vote.
C: And how dare a person living in a country that invented the bleep AND the mosaic over the mouth of the person being bleeped say anything about anyone other country?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100662</id>
	<title>Re:I guess Google's gonna have to pull out of</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1265908800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pulling out never works and you still end up with a mess everywhere else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pulling out never works and you still end up with a mess everywhere else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pulling out never works and you still end up with a mess everywhere else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31106480</id>
	<title>Re:Can an Australian brother...</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1265889000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>According to Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation, the Australian government passes it off as "not censorship" because all they're doing is "refusing classification." Unfortunately, anything without a classification cannot be sold in Australia. So, they're not banning it, technically, they're simply making it impossible to sell in a legal manner.</p></div><p>However youtube does not sell access to it's video's.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation , the Australian government passes it off as " not censorship " because all they 're doing is " refusing classification .
" Unfortunately , anything without a classification can not be sold in Australia .
So , they 're not banning it , technically , they 're simply making it impossible to sell in a legal manner.However youtube does not sell access to it 's video 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation, the Australian government passes it off as "not censorship" because all they're doing is "refusing classification.
" Unfortunately, anything without a classification cannot be sold in Australia.
So, they're not banning it, technically, they're simply making it impossible to sell in a legal manner.However youtube does not sell access to it's video's.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100044</id>
	<title>Re:This is getting interesting!</title>
	<author>ZeroExistenZ</author>
	<datestamp>1265906040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Now that the Australian government finds itself to be on the same side than China on censorship, I hope their legislators take a second look on the path they have taken for a while, and this apply to a few other Western parliaments as well...</p></div></blockquote><p>Maybe they have the same agenda...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that the Australian government finds itself to be on the same side than China on censorship , I hope their legislators take a second look on the path they have taken for a while , and this apply to a few other Western parliaments as well...Maybe they have the same agenda.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that the Australian government finds itself to be on the same side than China on censorship, I hope their legislators take a second look on the path they have taken for a while, and this apply to a few other Western parliaments as well...Maybe they have the same agenda...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101462</id>
	<title>Re:What is hate speech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265913060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If I am a religious leader and have a youtube video that states a conviction homosexuals are in danger of hell, am I guilty of hate speech?</i></p><p>Yes, but I don't think you should be prosecuted for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I am a religious leader and have a youtube video that states a conviction homosexuals are in danger of hell , am I guilty of hate speech ? Yes , but I do n't think you should be prosecuted for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I am a religious leader and have a youtube video that states a conviction homosexuals are in danger of hell, am I guilty of hate speech?Yes, but I don't think you should be prosecuted for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101030</id>
	<title>Re:Can an Australian brother...</title>
	<author>Asic Eng</author>
	<datestamp>1265910720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Australia is missing constitutional protection against these sort of things. Apart from that they are suffering from too many politicians who believe they know better than the "common people". Unfortunately that's a problem which they have in common with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, any other country in the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Australia is missing constitutional protection against these sort of things .
Apart from that they are suffering from too many politicians who believe they know better than the " common people " .
Unfortunately that 's a problem which they have in common with ... well , any other country in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Australia is missing constitutional protection against these sort of things.
Apart from that they are suffering from too many politicians who believe they know better than the "common people".
Unfortunately that's a problem which they have in common with ... well, any other country in the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31107320</id>
	<title>Re:familiar</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1265892360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can say fuck whenever I like I just prefer Frak.  Also I'm a big BSG fan<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can say fuck whenever I like I just prefer Frak .
Also I 'm a big BSG fan : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can say fuck whenever I like I just prefer Frak.
Also I'm a big BSG fan :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100254</id>
	<title>This Conroy guy?</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1265906940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck him. For any public official in a western democracy to be openly clamoring for things to be more like China is a disgrace, to say nothing of the corrosive effect it has on liberties elsewhere. Here's hoping that the good people of Australia will feed him to the sharks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck him .
For any public official in a western democracy to be openly clamoring for things to be more like China is a disgrace , to say nothing of the corrosive effect it has on liberties elsewhere .
Here 's hoping that the good people of Australia will feed him to the sharks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck him.
For any public official in a western democracy to be openly clamoring for things to be more like China is a disgrace, to say nothing of the corrosive effect it has on liberties elsewhere.
Here's hoping that the good people of Australia will feed him to the sharks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31109316</id>
	<title>Re:This is getting interesting!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265907120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, recognizing that that kind of POV exists is a start. Every field of expertise has an expert/user divide, like the law (lawyers and ordinary people), religion (priests and ordinary people), engineering (engineers and the people who use the trains/bridges/etc).</p><p>What the user thinks may not necessarily be the correct view. OK, with those incorrect POVV they should not try to do what experts ought to do (lead the experts). But on the other hand, the lawyers/priests/engineers shouldn't try to mould society at large, since they are not its leaders.</p><p>So the average guy/legislator/whoever shouldn't try to redefine the internet in a way which permits some impossible model of censorship.  The average sysadmin should recognize that most people just want "their internet to work".</p><p>(I didn't say that this post's parent implied that computer literate guys tried to dictate to the general public on what to do.)</p><p>The harsh sounding conclusion is to "know one's place in life".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , recognizing that that kind of POV exists is a start .
Every field of expertise has an expert/user divide , like the law ( lawyers and ordinary people ) , religion ( priests and ordinary people ) , engineering ( engineers and the people who use the trains/bridges/etc ) .What the user thinks may not necessarily be the correct view .
OK , with those incorrect POVV they should not try to do what experts ought to do ( lead the experts ) .
But on the other hand , the lawyers/priests/engineers should n't try to mould society at large , since they are not its leaders.So the average guy/legislator/whoever should n't try to redefine the internet in a way which permits some impossible model of censorship .
The average sysadmin should recognize that most people just want " their internet to work " .
( I did n't say that this post 's parent implied that computer literate guys tried to dictate to the general public on what to do .
) The harsh sounding conclusion is to " know one 's place in life " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, recognizing that that kind of POV exists is a start.
Every field of expertise has an expert/user divide, like the law (lawyers and ordinary people), religion (priests and ordinary people), engineering (engineers and the people who use the trains/bridges/etc).What the user thinks may not necessarily be the correct view.
OK, with those incorrect POVV they should not try to do what experts ought to do (lead the experts).
But on the other hand, the lawyers/priests/engineers shouldn't try to mould society at large, since they are not its leaders.So the average guy/legislator/whoever shouldn't try to redefine the internet in a way which permits some impossible model of censorship.
The average sysadmin should recognize that most people just want "their internet to work".
(I didn't say that this post's parent implied that computer literate guys tried to dictate to the general public on what to do.
)The harsh sounding conclusion is to "know one's place in life".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101720</id>
	<title>Re:This is getting interesting!</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1265914500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMO, a tool must do whatever I want it to do.</p><p>The Internet should transfer data whatever data I want, when I want, between endpoint A and endpoint B. If governments and companies start getting in the way of that it stops being a good tool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMO , a tool must do whatever I want it to do.The Internet should transfer data whatever data I want , when I want , between endpoint A and endpoint B. If governments and companies start getting in the way of that it stops being a good tool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMO, a tool must do whatever I want it to do.The Internet should transfer data whatever data I want, when I want, between endpoint A and endpoint B. If governments and companies start getting in the way of that it stops being a good tool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31104238</id>
	<title>Re:familiar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265880180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's uncensored on Caprica...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's uncensored on Caprica.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's uncensored on Caprica...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101180</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100394</id>
	<title>What is hate speech?</title>
	<author>howardd21</author>
	<datestamp>1265907540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>I am not a member or supporter in anyway of the KKK, Nazis, etc.</b>, but why is certain speech categorized as "hate" and therefore not allowed to be even stated?  Who decides what is hate?  That whole movement makes me nervous... <br> <br>

And will this be like the porn guy that was convicted in Florida, though he lived in California, for distributing videos via the internet.  If I complain about Barak Obama and make a statement that includes his race, am I suddenly guilty somewhere on some level? If I am a religious leader and have a youtube video that states a conviction homosexuals are in danger of hell, am I guilty of hate speech?  If not now, how about 5 years from now when the social winds change?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not a member or supporter in anyway of the KKK , Nazis , etc. , but why is certain speech categorized as " hate " and therefore not allowed to be even stated ?
Who decides what is hate ?
That whole movement makes me nervous.. . And will this be like the porn guy that was convicted in Florida , though he lived in California , for distributing videos via the internet .
If I complain about Barak Obama and make a statement that includes his race , am I suddenly guilty somewhere on some level ?
If I am a religious leader and have a youtube video that states a conviction homosexuals are in danger of hell , am I guilty of hate speech ?
If not now , how about 5 years from now when the social winds change ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not a member or supporter in anyway of the KKK, Nazis, etc., but why is certain speech categorized as "hate" and therefore not allowed to be even stated?
Who decides what is hate?
That whole movement makes me nervous...  

And will this be like the porn guy that was convicted in Florida, though he lived in California, for distributing videos via the internet.
If I complain about Barak Obama and make a statement that includes his race, am I suddenly guilty somewhere on some level?
If I am a religious leader and have a youtube video that states a conviction homosexuals are in danger of hell, am I guilty of hate speech?
If not now, how about 5 years from now when the social winds change?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100526</id>
	<title>They should have answered:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265908080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&ldquo;Censorship is a crime, forbidden by your most fundamental laws. Ladies and gentleman, you are engaging in criminal behavior. Do you wish to continue, and go to jail for it?&rdquo;</p><p>And then when they do continue, launch a huge campaign, causing the government to be overthrown.<br>I am sure Google can do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>   Censorship is a crime , forbidden by your most fundamental laws .
Ladies and gentleman , you are engaging in criminal behavior .
Do you wish to continue , and go to jail for it ?    And then when they do continue , launch a huge campaign , causing the government to be overthrown.I am sure Google can do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>“Censorship is a crime, forbidden by your most fundamental laws.
Ladies and gentleman, you are engaging in criminal behavior.
Do you wish to continue, and go to jail for it?”And then when they do continue, launch a huge campaign, causing the government to be overthrown.I am sure Google can do that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101296</id>
	<title>Re:What is hate speech?</title>
	<author>Bengie</author>
	<datestamp>1265912220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, there's a large grey area on this subject, but a lot "hate speech" seems quite clear. Most people who do hate speech have an agenda and have VERY biased info or out right falsehoods about a person/persons.</p><p>Your "religious leader" example wasn't a good one, but I know what you were getting at. Hate speech is very contextually dependent, so it's hard to make a law that  would be perfect.</p><p>Here's a snippit from wikipedia</p><p>"Hate speech is speech perceived to disparage a person or group of people based on their social or ethnic group[...]"<br>disparage: To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle</p><p>Synonyms: ridicule, discredit, mock, demean, denounce, derogate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , there 's a large grey area on this subject , but a lot " hate speech " seems quite clear .
Most people who do hate speech have an agenda and have VERY biased info or out right falsehoods about a person/persons.Your " religious leader " example was n't a good one , but I know what you were getting at .
Hate speech is very contextually dependent , so it 's hard to make a law that would be perfect.Here 's a snippit from wikipedia " Hate speech is speech perceived to disparage a person or group of people based on their social or ethnic group [ ... ] " disparage : To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way ; belittleSynonyms : ridicule , discredit , mock , demean , denounce , derogate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, there's a large grey area on this subject, but a lot "hate speech" seems quite clear.
Most people who do hate speech have an agenda and have VERY biased info or out right falsehoods about a person/persons.Your "religious leader" example wasn't a good one, but I know what you were getting at.
Hate speech is very contextually dependent, so it's hard to make a law that  would be perfect.Here's a snippit from wikipedia"Hate speech is speech perceived to disparage a person or group of people based on their social or ethnic group[...]"disparage: To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittleSynonyms: ridicule, discredit, mock, demean, denounce, derogate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100710</id>
	<title>mod Do-wn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265908980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Around are in nned as possible? How FreeBSD continues which gathers the last night of it a break, if dabblers. In truth, how it was supposed Trouble. It profits without The mobo blew = 36440 FreeBSD duty to be a big</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Around are in nned as possible ?
How FreeBSD continues which gathers the last night of it a break , if dabblers .
In truth , how it was supposed Trouble .
It profits without The mobo blew = 36440 FreeBSD duty to be a big [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Around are in nned as possible?
How FreeBSD continues which gathers the last night of it a break, if dabblers.
In truth, how it was supposed Trouble.
It profits without The mobo blew = 36440 FreeBSD duty to be a big [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099792</id>
	<title>Rating every YouTube video?</title>
	<author>ODiV</author>
	<datestamp>1265904900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do I get that job?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do I get that job ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do I get that job?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31102562</id>
	<title>Re:This is getting interesting!</title>
	<author>element-o.p.</author>
	<datestamp>1265917440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you are confusing the issue here.  Google (and therefore YouTube), as a private entity, has the right to say what they will and will not allow on the forums they create.  Don't like their censorship?  Then build your own forum.  I have, and found myself forced to censor the forum because of the spammers -- in fact, I ended up shutting it down because it was just too much work to maintain.  A completely free forum is anything but the &quot;cruft-free content&quot; for which you pine nowadays.  Back when the Internet was limited to researches and academics who lived by a code of professional ethics, it was possible to have a pretty much &quot;hands-off&quot; network.  That's not the case anymore.
<br> <br>
But, IMHO, that's not the real issue.  The real issue is that governments, including China, Australia and, unfortunately, the U.S. where I live, keep trying to push their own legal requirements on the Internet as well.  Rather than simply saying, &quot;anyone in our country who violates these laws will be prosecuted&quot;, they are trying to force the Google's, the eBay's, and so on to police the networks for them.  France freaked out a while ago because people were selling WWII memorabilia that had Nazi logos on them (which violated their &quot;hate speech&quot; laws).  Someone in Illinois sued Spamhaus for including a domain that the plaintiff owned in a blacklist.  Spamhaus elected not to travel to the U.S. to fight the legal battle, and therefore lost by default.  That's just two examples from the so-called &quot;Free World&quot;  It's even worse if you want to think about the mid-east, the banana republics, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you are confusing the issue here .
Google ( and therefore YouTube ) , as a private entity , has the right to say what they will and will not allow on the forums they create .
Do n't like their censorship ?
Then build your own forum .
I have , and found myself forced to censor the forum because of the spammers -- in fact , I ended up shutting it down because it was just too much work to maintain .
A completely free forum is anything but the " cruft-free content " for which you pine nowadays .
Back when the Internet was limited to researches and academics who lived by a code of professional ethics , it was possible to have a pretty much " hands-off " network .
That 's not the case anymore .
But , IMHO , that 's not the real issue .
The real issue is that governments , including China , Australia and , unfortunately , the U.S. where I live , keep trying to push their own legal requirements on the Internet as well .
Rather than simply saying , " anyone in our country who violates these laws will be prosecuted " , they are trying to force the Google 's , the eBay 's , and so on to police the networks for them .
France freaked out a while ago because people were selling WWII memorabilia that had Nazi logos on them ( which violated their " hate speech " laws ) .
Someone in Illinois sued Spamhaus for including a domain that the plaintiff owned in a blacklist .
Spamhaus elected not to travel to the U.S. to fight the legal battle , and therefore lost by default .
That 's just two examples from the so-called " Free World " It 's even worse if you want to think about the mid-east , the banana republics , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you are confusing the issue here.
Google (and therefore YouTube), as a private entity, has the right to say what they will and will not allow on the forums they create.
Don't like their censorship?
Then build your own forum.
I have, and found myself forced to censor the forum because of the spammers -- in fact, I ended up shutting it down because it was just too much work to maintain.
A completely free forum is anything but the "cruft-free content" for which you pine nowadays.
Back when the Internet was limited to researches and academics who lived by a code of professional ethics, it was possible to have a pretty much "hands-off" network.
That's not the case anymore.
But, IMHO, that's not the real issue.
The real issue is that governments, including China, Australia and, unfortunately, the U.S. where I live, keep trying to push their own legal requirements on the Internet as well.
Rather than simply saying, "anyone in our country who violates these laws will be prosecuted", they are trying to force the Google's, the eBay's, and so on to police the networks for them.
France freaked out a while ago because people were selling WWII memorabilia that had Nazi logos on them (which violated their "hate speech" laws).
Someone in Illinois sued Spamhaus for including a domain that the plaintiff owned in a blacklist.
Spamhaus elected not to travel to the U.S. to fight the legal battle, and therefore lost by default.
That's just two examples from the so-called "Free World"  It's even worse if you want to think about the mid-east, the banana republics, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31111118</id>
	<title>Re:Can an Australian brother...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265975700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hehe funny - Australia is the place that British people go to when they feel the government is too soft on crime or immigrants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hehe funny - Australia is the place that British people go to when they feel the government is too soft on crime or immigrants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hehe funny - Australia is the place that British people go to when they feel the government is too soft on crime or immigrants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099854</id>
	<title>familiar</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1265905140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad Google didn't tell the Chinese govt. to frak its self in the beginning as well.  Then again It'd be like Google saying that the govt. was being unreasonable because Google already prohibited anything on Tiananmen Square anyways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad Google did n't tell the Chinese govt .
to frak its self in the beginning as well .
Then again It 'd be like Google saying that the govt .
was being unreasonable because Google already prohibited anything on Tiananmen Square anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad Google didn't tell the Chinese govt.
to frak its self in the beginning as well.
Then again It'd be like Google saying that the govt.
was being unreasonable because Google already prohibited anything on Tiananmen Square anyways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31109844</id>
	<title>Re:Can an Australian brother...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265913420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you know anything about the so called 'riots'? It was a completely peaceful meeting of people of all nationalities that had gotten together to fight against hatred, xenophobia and unprovoked violence shown in the majority by one particular minority. This minority intended to start the violence and succeeded admirably. I wonder what Americans would do if they saw a minority that is out of control arrive at their peaceful gathering and urinate on a US flag. Everyone in Sydney knows which country and which religion the perpetrators of the violence and abuse come from and anyone that claims that it doesn't occur or that it is exaggerated is truly a black belt in doublethink. I can accept just about anybody regardless of sex, colour, persuasions, etc. What i won't accept is lifeguards who are in a lot of cases voluntarily giving their time to protect beach goers having to fear violence whenever they go to work at the hands of ONE particular group of people. If you don't believe it happens just go to the beaches affected in summer on a weekend. You can ignore them calling your girlfriend a slut and a whore, allow them to play soccer all over the flagged areas kicking sand, balls, and your gear all over the place. Actually moving your stuff around while you are in the water so the extended family of fifty can have a contiguous area in which they all speak loudly in a language that isn't English(the only English you will hear is when you are beiong called a white c--t or something similar). Then during the week you can watch their parents walking the western suburbs (the wife will be walking 20 paces behind and looking at the ground showing how accepting they are of Australian values). I for one do not support this countries ridiculous immigration policies and haven't done for the last two decades. Now what I predicted is occurring and lots of the ignorant, chardonnay swilling, children of the seventies(who feel guilty for betraying what they believed in for the capitalist dream) pretend it isn't even though examples of the failure of multi-culturalism exist all over the EU. Did I mention this is the same ethnic group that made a sport of gang raping(14+ armed males) 13/14yo australian girls and in court stating that they deserved it as they are aussie sluts. Even the mother of one of the rapists decided to start abusing one of the girls in court for being a whore. If my hating people who behave like this makes me a conservative in your eyes then you are an idiot. During the Balkans business we had cars driving around the western suburbs of sydney flying the flags of the parties involved and fighting each other in the streets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you know anything about the so called 'riots ' ?
It was a completely peaceful meeting of people of all nationalities that had gotten together to fight against hatred , xenophobia and unprovoked violence shown in the majority by one particular minority .
This minority intended to start the violence and succeeded admirably .
I wonder what Americans would do if they saw a minority that is out of control arrive at their peaceful gathering and urinate on a US flag .
Everyone in Sydney knows which country and which religion the perpetrators of the violence and abuse come from and anyone that claims that it does n't occur or that it is exaggerated is truly a black belt in doublethink .
I can accept just about anybody regardless of sex , colour , persuasions , etc .
What i wo n't accept is lifeguards who are in a lot of cases voluntarily giving their time to protect beach goers having to fear violence whenever they go to work at the hands of ONE particular group of people .
If you do n't believe it happens just go to the beaches affected in summer on a weekend .
You can ignore them calling your girlfriend a slut and a whore , allow them to play soccer all over the flagged areas kicking sand , balls , and your gear all over the place .
Actually moving your stuff around while you are in the water so the extended family of fifty can have a contiguous area in which they all speak loudly in a language that is n't English ( the only English you will hear is when you are beiong called a white c--t or something similar ) .
Then during the week you can watch their parents walking the western suburbs ( the wife will be walking 20 paces behind and looking at the ground showing how accepting they are of Australian values ) .
I for one do not support this countries ridiculous immigration policies and have n't done for the last two decades .
Now what I predicted is occurring and lots of the ignorant , chardonnay swilling , children of the seventies ( who feel guilty for betraying what they believed in for the capitalist dream ) pretend it is n't even though examples of the failure of multi-culturalism exist all over the EU .
Did I mention this is the same ethnic group that made a sport of gang raping ( 14 + armed males ) 13/14yo australian girls and in court stating that they deserved it as they are aussie sluts .
Even the mother of one of the rapists decided to start abusing one of the girls in court for being a whore .
If my hating people who behave like this makes me a conservative in your eyes then you are an idiot .
During the Balkans business we had cars driving around the western suburbs of sydney flying the flags of the parties involved and fighting each other in the streets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you know anything about the so called 'riots'?
It was a completely peaceful meeting of people of all nationalities that had gotten together to fight against hatred, xenophobia and unprovoked violence shown in the majority by one particular minority.
This minority intended to start the violence and succeeded admirably.
I wonder what Americans would do if they saw a minority that is out of control arrive at their peaceful gathering and urinate on a US flag.
Everyone in Sydney knows which country and which religion the perpetrators of the violence and abuse come from and anyone that claims that it doesn't occur or that it is exaggerated is truly a black belt in doublethink.
I can accept just about anybody regardless of sex, colour, persuasions, etc.
What i won't accept is lifeguards who are in a lot of cases voluntarily giving their time to protect beach goers having to fear violence whenever they go to work at the hands of ONE particular group of people.
If you don't believe it happens just go to the beaches affected in summer on a weekend.
You can ignore them calling your girlfriend a slut and a whore, allow them to play soccer all over the flagged areas kicking sand, balls, and your gear all over the place.
Actually moving your stuff around while you are in the water so the extended family of fifty can have a contiguous area in which they all speak loudly in a language that isn't English(the only English you will hear is when you are beiong called a white c--t or something similar).
Then during the week you can watch their parents walking the western suburbs (the wife will be walking 20 paces behind and looking at the ground showing how accepting they are of Australian values).
I for one do not support this countries ridiculous immigration policies and haven't done for the last two decades.
Now what I predicted is occurring and lots of the ignorant, chardonnay swilling, children of the seventies(who feel guilty for betraying what they believed in for the capitalist dream) pretend it isn't even though examples of the failure of multi-culturalism exist all over the EU.
Did I mention this is the same ethnic group that made a sport of gang raping(14+ armed males) 13/14yo australian girls and in court stating that they deserved it as they are aussie sluts.
Even the mother of one of the rapists decided to start abusing one of the girls in court for being a whore.
If my hating people who behave like this makes me a conservative in your eyes then you are an idiot.
During the Balkans business we had cars driving around the western suburbs of sydney flying the flags of the parties involved and fighting each other in the streets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31103100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100360</id>
	<title>Re:This is getting interesting!</title>
	<author>HungryHobo</author>
	<datestamp>1265907420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lots of people complain about Endless September.</p><p>But those communities are still there. at least many of them are.<br>they just look small and puny next to the megacorps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of people complain about Endless September.But those communities are still there .
at least many of them are.they just look small and puny next to the megacorps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of people complain about Endless September.But those communities are still there.
at least many of them are.they just look small and puny next to the megacorps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31104574</id>
	<title>Re:This is getting interesting!</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1265881620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I remember the days of usenet</p></div></blockquote><p>If people keep breaking the first and second rules like you just did, then sooner or later <i>they</i>'re going to find out about it.  And slightly less soon or slightly more late <i>they</i>'ll shut it down.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember the days of usenetIf people keep breaking the first and second rules like you just did , then sooner or later they 're going to find out about it .
And slightly less soon or slightly more late they 'll shut it down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember the days of usenetIf people keep breaking the first and second rules like you just did, then sooner or later they're going to find out about it.
And slightly less soon or slightly more late they'll shut it down.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31106092</id>
	<title>Re:This is getting interesting!</title>
	<author>bug1</author>
	<datestamp>1265887260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is said that the only thing that has protected Australians from oppressive censorship over the decades has been the incompetence of the government in implementing it.</p><p>Could it be that Australia finally has a competent government, oh the tragedy....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is said that the only thing that has protected Australians from oppressive censorship over the decades has been the incompetence of the government in implementing it.Could it be that Australia finally has a competent government , oh the tragedy... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is said that the only thing that has protected Australians from oppressive censorship over the decades has been the incompetence of the government in implementing it.Could it be that Australia finally has a competent government, oh the tragedy....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100722</id>
	<title>Who Should Decide Policy?</title>
	<author>eegad</author>
	<datestamp>1265909040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Setting aside for the moment what we personally (or nationally) think might be right and wrong for the whole world (such as democracy or freedom of speech), is it Google's place to decide policy in every nation?  I see two real alternatives here:</p><p>1.  Google decides to determine policy (other than its own) and provides exactly what content is allowable to each country as determined by each country.</p><p>2.  Google decides to ignore each country's policy requests and each country must determine to what level they will censor Google internally.</p><p>And of course, by "Google", I really mean every content provider on the internet.  I can see arguments for each alternative, but I think I lean towards #2 because it doesn't place an undo burden on providers or start subjecting them to international information restriction laws or any such nonsense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Setting aside for the moment what we personally ( or nationally ) think might be right and wrong for the whole world ( such as democracy or freedom of speech ) , is it Google 's place to decide policy in every nation ?
I see two real alternatives here : 1 .
Google decides to determine policy ( other than its own ) and provides exactly what content is allowable to each country as determined by each country.2 .
Google decides to ignore each country 's policy requests and each country must determine to what level they will censor Google internally.And of course , by " Google " , I really mean every content provider on the internet .
I can see arguments for each alternative , but I think I lean towards # 2 because it does n't place an undo burden on providers or start subjecting them to international information restriction laws or any such nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Setting aside for the moment what we personally (or nationally) think might be right and wrong for the whole world (such as democracy or freedom of speech), is it Google's place to decide policy in every nation?
I see two real alternatives here:1.
Google decides to determine policy (other than its own) and provides exactly what content is allowable to each country as determined by each country.2.
Google decides to ignore each country's policy requests and each country must determine to what level they will censor Google internally.And of course, by "Google", I really mean every content provider on the internet.
I can see arguments for each alternative, but I think I lean towards #2 because it doesn't place an undo burden on providers or start subjecting them to international information restriction laws or any such nonsense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100976</id>
	<title>Re:This is getting interesting!</title>
	<author>Dog-Cow</author>
	<datestamp>1265910480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're supposed to be more intelligent than you prove yourself to be, but, well, you're not.  You actually come across as a complete imbecile.</p><p>Youtube can censore whatever the Hell it wants.  It has zero responsibility to ANYONE in this regard.  Your misguided desire to use Google's resources for yourself not-withstanding.</p><p>The Internet is not "supposed to be" anything except a network of networks.  Each network is free to police itself as desired.</p><p>You are an idiot and should be censored from the Internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're supposed to be more intelligent than you prove yourself to be , but , well , you 're not .
You actually come across as a complete imbecile.Youtube can censore whatever the Hell it wants .
It has zero responsibility to ANYONE in this regard .
Your misguided desire to use Google 's resources for yourself not-withstanding.The Internet is not " supposed to be " anything except a network of networks .
Each network is free to police itself as desired.You are an idiot and should be censored from the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're supposed to be more intelligent than you prove yourself to be, but, well, you're not.
You actually come across as a complete imbecile.Youtube can censore whatever the Hell it wants.
It has zero responsibility to ANYONE in this regard.
Your misguided desire to use Google's resources for yourself not-withstanding.The Internet is not "supposed to be" anything except a network of networks.
Each network is free to police itself as desired.You are an idiot and should be censored from the Internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101898</id>
	<title>Re:This is getting interesting!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265915280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Internet is supposed to be free. It is supposed to allow equal access to data by equal parties. The existence of megacorporations in this space <b>undermines the original spirit of the Internet</b>, and provides just another way to turn the once-egalitarian Internet into just another tilted media outlet like Fox News.</p><p>I remember the days of usenet, when IRC was the main form of IM, when gopher provided beautiful cruft-free content and I pine. </p></div><p>Your memory doesn't go back far enough.  Remember that the internet started as a DARPA project?  Remember when it was SAGE?  Remember when it was ARPANET?  The original "spirit" of the internet was for US defense communications.</p><p>Freedom is not free.  Freedom is not unlimited.  You want to be free to say and do what you want?  Do it on your own site.  Google is giving you access to THEIR site (youtube) to use as they see fit, not as you see fit.  You want more freedom than what they offer?  Make your own.  You are free to do that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Internet is supposed to be free .
It is supposed to allow equal access to data by equal parties .
The existence of megacorporations in this space undermines the original spirit of the Internet , and provides just another way to turn the once-egalitarian Internet into just another tilted media outlet like Fox News.I remember the days of usenet , when IRC was the main form of IM , when gopher provided beautiful cruft-free content and I pine .
Your memory does n't go back far enough .
Remember that the internet started as a DARPA project ?
Remember when it was SAGE ?
Remember when it was ARPANET ?
The original " spirit " of the internet was for US defense communications.Freedom is not free .
Freedom is not unlimited .
You want to be free to say and do what you want ?
Do it on your own site .
Google is giving you access to THEIR site ( youtube ) to use as they see fit , not as you see fit .
You want more freedom than what they offer ?
Make your own .
You are free to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Internet is supposed to be free.
It is supposed to allow equal access to data by equal parties.
The existence of megacorporations in this space undermines the original spirit of the Internet, and provides just another way to turn the once-egalitarian Internet into just another tilted media outlet like Fox News.I remember the days of usenet, when IRC was the main form of IM, when gopher provided beautiful cruft-free content and I pine.
Your memory doesn't go back far enough.
Remember that the internet started as a DARPA project?
Remember when it was SAGE?
Remember when it was ARPANET?
The original "spirit" of the internet was for US defense communications.Freedom is not free.
Freedom is not unlimited.
You want to be free to say and do what you want?
Do it on your own site.
Google is giving you access to THEIR site (youtube) to use as they see fit, not as you see fit.
You want more freedom than what they offer?
Make your own.
You are free to do that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31105664</id>
	<title>Re:This Conroy guy?</title>
	<author>abdulla</author>
	<datestamp>1265885640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's an election year, we Australians need to ensure he is not re-elected. I'm not sure how to go about this, but anyone who has an idea, I'd be willing to help.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an election year , we Australians need to ensure he is not re-elected .
I 'm not sure how to go about this , but anyone who has an idea , I 'd be willing to help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an election year, we Australians need to ensure he is not re-elected.
I'm not sure how to go about this, but anyone who has an idea, I'd be willing to help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101066</id>
	<title>If you can afford to, don't ban hate speech.</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1265911020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the western world has a sufficient police force to allow all kinds of backwards hate speech to exist. Some people are bigots, and there's not much you can do about it. Providing a passion for their narrative, by trying to suppress their free speech or incarcerating them for saying something, helps them more than it hurts them. It gives them the attention that they crave, an in some ways legitimizes their "struggle."</p><p>Here in the states this is one thing we get mostly right. You can parade around in white sheets, and say nigger and kike all you want. The rest of us will be over here, chuckling at your foolish costume and face tattoos, while the FBI continues to build a profile of your idiocy.</p><p>Then, if you actually follow through with the nonsense, hate crime laws will put you away for a few decades. In essence, you're welcome to continue acting like an idiot, but if you actually hurt someone you're going to pay dearly for the crime.</p><p>I only wish we could apply the same principles to drug users and other non-violent criminals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the western world has a sufficient police force to allow all kinds of backwards hate speech to exist .
Some people are bigots , and there 's not much you can do about it .
Providing a passion for their narrative , by trying to suppress their free speech or incarcerating them for saying something , helps them more than it hurts them .
It gives them the attention that they crave , an in some ways legitimizes their " struggle .
" Here in the states this is one thing we get mostly right .
You can parade around in white sheets , and say nigger and kike all you want .
The rest of us will be over here , chuckling at your foolish costume and face tattoos , while the FBI continues to build a profile of your idiocy.Then , if you actually follow through with the nonsense , hate crime laws will put you away for a few decades .
In essence , you 're welcome to continue acting like an idiot , but if you actually hurt someone you 're going to pay dearly for the crime.I only wish we could apply the same principles to drug users and other non-violent criminals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the western world has a sufficient police force to allow all kinds of backwards hate speech to exist.
Some people are bigots, and there's not much you can do about it.
Providing a passion for their narrative, by trying to suppress their free speech or incarcerating them for saying something, helps them more than it hurts them.
It gives them the attention that they crave, an in some ways legitimizes their "struggle.
"Here in the states this is one thing we get mostly right.
You can parade around in white sheets, and say nigger and kike all you want.
The rest of us will be over here, chuckling at your foolish costume and face tattoos, while the FBI continues to build a profile of your idiocy.Then, if you actually follow through with the nonsense, hate crime laws will put you away for a few decades.
In essence, you're welcome to continue acting like an idiot, but if you actually hurt someone you're going to pay dearly for the crime.I only wish we could apply the same principles to drug users and other non-violent criminals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31109374</id>
	<title>Re:This is getting interesting!</title>
	<author>countach</author>
	<datestamp>1265907900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem I see is that every time there is something in society that is not ideal, some schmuck asks a politician to fix it. And the politician has only one hammer: legislation, so every problem looks like a nail.</p><p>Look at <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/vodcast.htm" title="abc.net.au">this bunch of kids</a> [abc.net.au] interview Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Half the "problems" raised by the students are not really government problems at all. Rudd, if he had any balls should have told these kids "not my problem". But no politician ever seems to have the balls to say that. Every problem must be a government problem and "solved" via the heavy hand of legislation. Every problem must have multiple senate committees appointed and so forth, when most problems are simply problems for the community and individuals to solve by themselves. There needs to be a sea change of attitude reform. Stop looking to the government to solve all your problems. You're just mounting up legislation on top of legislation until the point where the real problem becomes the government itself, and everyone is so hamstrung and neutered that nothing can be done any more without the government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem I see is that every time there is something in society that is not ideal , some schmuck asks a politician to fix it .
And the politician has only one hammer : legislation , so every problem looks like a nail.Look at this bunch of kids [ abc.net.au ] interview Prime Minister Kevin Rudd .
Half the " problems " raised by the students are not really government problems at all .
Rudd , if he had any balls should have told these kids " not my problem " .
But no politician ever seems to have the balls to say that .
Every problem must be a government problem and " solved " via the heavy hand of legislation .
Every problem must have multiple senate committees appointed and so forth , when most problems are simply problems for the community and individuals to solve by themselves .
There needs to be a sea change of attitude reform .
Stop looking to the government to solve all your problems .
You 're just mounting up legislation on top of legislation until the point where the real problem becomes the government itself , and everyone is so hamstrung and neutered that nothing can be done any more without the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem I see is that every time there is something in society that is not ideal, some schmuck asks a politician to fix it.
And the politician has only one hammer: legislation, so every problem looks like a nail.Look at this bunch of kids [abc.net.au] interview Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
Half the "problems" raised by the students are not really government problems at all.
Rudd, if he had any balls should have told these kids "not my problem".
But no politician ever seems to have the balls to say that.
Every problem must be a government problem and "solved" via the heavy hand of legislation.
Every problem must have multiple senate committees appointed and so forth, when most problems are simply problems for the community and individuals to solve by themselves.
There needs to be a sea change of attitude reform.
Stop looking to the government to solve all your problems.
You're just mounting up legislation on top of legislation until the point where the real problem becomes the government itself, and everyone is so hamstrung and neutered that nothing can be done any more without the government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31106162</id>
	<title>Re:This is getting interesting!</title>
	<author>ArundelCastle</author>
	<datestamp>1265887560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Internet is supposed to be free. It is supposed to allow equal access to data by equal parties. The existence of megacorporations in this space undermines the original spirit of the Internet, and provides just another way to turn the once-egalitarian Internet into just another tilted media outlet like Fox News.</p></div><p>Good discussion point or FUD?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)  Okay I'll bite.<br>It's all very good and nostalgic to say that the original spirit of the "free internet" has been lost to commercialism. But in fact very little has been lost, the values you speak of simply get drowned out by "bigger and better". You're talking about net neutrality. I've been using the internet since the 1980s, and in fact the network is not designed to be free, it's designed to be redundant. Why can't we get back to the values of preserving communication in the event of global thermonuclear war?  Twitter goes down for 10 minutes and the entire world fucking flips out.  THAT'S what we're losing.  The eggs are back in small baskets.</p><p>We pay for things that we decide have a certain level of value.  I choose to pay for a cell phone, internet access, DVDs-by-mail, and ignore broadcast television completely.  I don't pay Twitter or Google a dime to use their services because there's no paid tier that would be improve my life.  If they were obliterated tomorrow I'd be grumbling for a weekend while I change my bookmarks to other services, and rebuild whatever data lost since my last offline sync.  No matter how big one service gets, the "spirit" of the internet dictates that there will always be alternatives because enterprising folks are free to create those alternatives.  Huge corporations, like governments, rise, crumble, and disappear.  It's just that the perception of time works differently here and we can't imagine life without YouTube.  But I promise you it exists.</p><p>Google doesn't just believe it offers an infrastructure for free speech, that is in fact what user-submitted content allows.  Time magazine said so.  And there is simply too much of it to police effectively.  The fact that Google is not willing to simply roll over on any Government's whim, be it U.S., China (recently), or Australia, makes me feel better about Google as a global force.  Governments are full of old puritans. Google is full of horny twenty-somethings that like streaming.  I'll take my chances with how they choose to define pornography.  It's their servers, and guess what, they get to make the rules and we are free to voice our dissatisfaction on their policies or leave.  It's the same reason I'll never live in Australia or England.</p><p>Google is completely incapable of removing things that it didn't establish.  If I give you ten apples and later decide to take back two that were rotting, you haven't lost anything, and I had no moral obligation to give you a certain number of apples.  You can still pick your own apples.  You can still use pine and sendmail.  You can still use IPv4 addresses. You can still get access via freenets, universities, and government offices.  You can still use Gopher, FTP, Archie, Jughead... but you can only see the information made accessible in that way.  If you want to see Flash content, you install Flash.  If you want to read Da Vinci's original notes, you have to learn Italian.  Scream all you want, but access to information is a privilege, not a right.  If you're illiterate, newspapers are not obligated to broadcast aloud on the radio.  Someone else does that because it makes them a profit.</p><p>You are more than welcome to set up your own egalitarian area of the internet out of your own pocket, and hook your servers up to a trunk so that you don't have to pay a service provider with a puritan TOS agreement to deal with cease and desist letters.  But odds are I would find your site through Google.  There's nothing wrong with any of that.  That's how it's supposed to work in the society we have built for ourselves.</p><p>You are also more than welcome to start your own society.  I'll bring the kool aid.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Internet is supposed to be free .
It is supposed to allow equal access to data by equal parties .
The existence of megacorporations in this space undermines the original spirit of the Internet , and provides just another way to turn the once-egalitarian Internet into just another tilted media outlet like Fox News.Good discussion point or FUD ?
; - ) Okay I 'll bite.It 's all very good and nostalgic to say that the original spirit of the " free internet " has been lost to commercialism .
But in fact very little has been lost , the values you speak of simply get drowned out by " bigger and better " .
You 're talking about net neutrality .
I 've been using the internet since the 1980s , and in fact the network is not designed to be free , it 's designed to be redundant .
Why ca n't we get back to the values of preserving communication in the event of global thermonuclear war ?
Twitter goes down for 10 minutes and the entire world fucking flips out .
THAT 'S what we 're losing .
The eggs are back in small baskets.We pay for things that we decide have a certain level of value .
I choose to pay for a cell phone , internet access , DVDs-by-mail , and ignore broadcast television completely .
I do n't pay Twitter or Google a dime to use their services because there 's no paid tier that would be improve my life .
If they were obliterated tomorrow I 'd be grumbling for a weekend while I change my bookmarks to other services , and rebuild whatever data lost since my last offline sync .
No matter how big one service gets , the " spirit " of the internet dictates that there will always be alternatives because enterprising folks are free to create those alternatives .
Huge corporations , like governments , rise , crumble , and disappear .
It 's just that the perception of time works differently here and we ca n't imagine life without YouTube .
But I promise you it exists.Google does n't just believe it offers an infrastructure for free speech , that is in fact what user-submitted content allows .
Time magazine said so .
And there is simply too much of it to police effectively .
The fact that Google is not willing to simply roll over on any Government 's whim , be it U.S. , China ( recently ) , or Australia , makes me feel better about Google as a global force .
Governments are full of old puritans .
Google is full of horny twenty-somethings that like streaming .
I 'll take my chances with how they choose to define pornography .
It 's their servers , and guess what , they get to make the rules and we are free to voice our dissatisfaction on their policies or leave .
It 's the same reason I 'll never live in Australia or England.Google is completely incapable of removing things that it did n't establish .
If I give you ten apples and later decide to take back two that were rotting , you have n't lost anything , and I had no moral obligation to give you a certain number of apples .
You can still pick your own apples .
You can still use pine and sendmail .
You can still use IPv4 addresses .
You can still get access via freenets , universities , and government offices .
You can still use Gopher , FTP , Archie , Jughead... but you can only see the information made accessible in that way .
If you want to see Flash content , you install Flash .
If you want to read Da Vinci 's original notes , you have to learn Italian .
Scream all you want , but access to information is a privilege , not a right .
If you 're illiterate , newspapers are not obligated to broadcast aloud on the radio .
Someone else does that because it makes them a profit.You are more than welcome to set up your own egalitarian area of the internet out of your own pocket , and hook your servers up to a trunk so that you do n't have to pay a service provider with a puritan TOS agreement to deal with cease and desist letters .
But odds are I would find your site through Google .
There 's nothing wrong with any of that .
That 's how it 's supposed to work in the society we have built for ourselves.You are also more than welcome to start your own society .
I 'll bring the kool aid .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Internet is supposed to be free.
It is supposed to allow equal access to data by equal parties.
The existence of megacorporations in this space undermines the original spirit of the Internet, and provides just another way to turn the once-egalitarian Internet into just another tilted media outlet like Fox News.Good discussion point or FUD?
;-)  Okay I'll bite.It's all very good and nostalgic to say that the original spirit of the "free internet" has been lost to commercialism.
But in fact very little has been lost, the values you speak of simply get drowned out by "bigger and better".
You're talking about net neutrality.
I've been using the internet since the 1980s, and in fact the network is not designed to be free, it's designed to be redundant.
Why can't we get back to the values of preserving communication in the event of global thermonuclear war?
Twitter goes down for 10 minutes and the entire world fucking flips out.
THAT'S what we're losing.
The eggs are back in small baskets.We pay for things that we decide have a certain level of value.
I choose to pay for a cell phone, internet access, DVDs-by-mail, and ignore broadcast television completely.
I don't pay Twitter or Google a dime to use their services because there's no paid tier that would be improve my life.
If they were obliterated tomorrow I'd be grumbling for a weekend while I change my bookmarks to other services, and rebuild whatever data lost since my last offline sync.
No matter how big one service gets, the "spirit" of the internet dictates that there will always be alternatives because enterprising folks are free to create those alternatives.
Huge corporations, like governments, rise, crumble, and disappear.
It's just that the perception of time works differently here and we can't imagine life without YouTube.
But I promise you it exists.Google doesn't just believe it offers an infrastructure for free speech, that is in fact what user-submitted content allows.
Time magazine said so.
And there is simply too much of it to police effectively.
The fact that Google is not willing to simply roll over on any Government's whim, be it U.S., China (recently), or Australia, makes me feel better about Google as a global force.
Governments are full of old puritans.
Google is full of horny twenty-somethings that like streaming.
I'll take my chances with how they choose to define pornography.
It's their servers, and guess what, they get to make the rules and we are free to voice our dissatisfaction on their policies or leave.
It's the same reason I'll never live in Australia or England.Google is completely incapable of removing things that it didn't establish.
If I give you ten apples and later decide to take back two that were rotting, you haven't lost anything, and I had no moral obligation to give you a certain number of apples.
You can still pick your own apples.
You can still use pine and sendmail.
You can still use IPv4 addresses.
You can still get access via freenets, universities, and government offices.
You can still use Gopher, FTP, Archie, Jughead... but you can only see the information made accessible in that way.
If you want to see Flash content, you install Flash.
If you want to read Da Vinci's original notes, you have to learn Italian.
Scream all you want, but access to information is a privilege, not a right.
If you're illiterate, newspapers are not obligated to broadcast aloud on the radio.
Someone else does that because it makes them a profit.You are more than welcome to set up your own egalitarian area of the internet out of your own pocket, and hook your servers up to a trunk so that you don't have to pay a service provider with a puritan TOS agreement to deal with cease and desist letters.
But odds are I would find your site through Google.
There's nothing wrong with any of that.
That's how it's supposed to work in the society we have built for ourselves.You are also more than welcome to start your own society.
I'll bring the kool aid.
:-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31107688</id>
	<title>Re:Can an Australian brother...</title>
	<author>fabs64</author>
	<datestamp>1265894220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't recall at any point someone coming out and saying it's "not censorship", and I can't find any reference to anyone saying it.<br>Censorship is *old* and established in Australia. The chaotic nature of the Internet is causing light to be thrown on it and shaking things up. This is a *good* thing.</p><p>The problem is, it's old and established because quite a lot of people are happy with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't recall at any point someone coming out and saying it 's " not censorship " , and I ca n't find any reference to anyone saying it.Censorship is * old * and established in Australia .
The chaotic nature of the Internet is causing light to be thrown on it and shaking things up .
This is a * good * thing.The problem is , it 's old and established because quite a lot of people are happy with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't recall at any point someone coming out and saying it's "not censorship", and I can't find any reference to anyone saying it.Censorship is *old* and established in Australia.
The chaotic nature of the Internet is causing light to be thrown on it and shaking things up.
This is a *good* thing.The problem is, it's old and established because quite a lot of people are happy with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31106550</id>
	<title>Re:What is hate speech?</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1265889300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When we deny free-speech to one particular group of people we eradicate the justification for our own and the downward slide towards totalitarianism begins. First we block the neo-nazi's then the white supremacists and who's next?</p><p>Who is going to decide what should or should not be added to the blacklist? What if the person adding sites to the blacklist has an opposing opinion to that of your own, what if they are a Muslim and you are a Jew, what if they find violent video games offensive but you enjoy playing those games, what if you hate opera but they love it. This list is potentially limitless, the Human race is so diverse that any attempt to have a Human decide what is or is not desirable content is a complete failure of logic. The blacklist is inherently flawed due to the vast differences in interest and opinions within Human society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When we deny free-speech to one particular group of people we eradicate the justification for our own and the downward slide towards totalitarianism begins .
First we block the neo-nazi 's then the white supremacists and who 's next ? Who is going to decide what should or should not be added to the blacklist ?
What if the person adding sites to the blacklist has an opposing opinion to that of your own , what if they are a Muslim and you are a Jew , what if they find violent video games offensive but you enjoy playing those games , what if you hate opera but they love it .
This list is potentially limitless , the Human race is so diverse that any attempt to have a Human decide what is or is not desirable content is a complete failure of logic .
The blacklist is inherently flawed due to the vast differences in interest and opinions within Human society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When we deny free-speech to one particular group of people we eradicate the justification for our own and the downward slide towards totalitarianism begins.
First we block the neo-nazi's then the white supremacists and who's next?Who is going to decide what should or should not be added to the blacklist?
What if the person adding sites to the blacklist has an opposing opinion to that of your own, what if they are a Muslim and you are a Jew, what if they find violent video games offensive but you enjoy playing those games, what if you hate opera but they love it.
This list is potentially limitless, the Human race is so diverse that any attempt to have a Human decide what is or is not desirable content is a complete failure of logic.
The blacklist is inherently flawed due to the vast differences in interest and opinions within Human society.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100324</id>
	<title>Re:sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265907180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wait... They will take them!?!?!?!</p><p>Quick mother, get station wagon and your trank gun, we have work to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wait... They will take them ! ? ! ? ! ?
! Quick mother , get station wagon and your trank gun , we have work to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wait... They will take them!?!?!?
!Quick mother, get station wagon and your trank gun, we have work to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100946</id>
	<title>Re:This is getting interesting!</title>
	<author>eiMichael</author>
	<datestamp>1265910240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How could we, as citizens of the global Internet connected society, go about moving back towards an egalitarian Internet?</p></div><p>We as citizens simply cannot.  We have very little control of the infrastructure of the Internet.  It just takes 1 popular politician, and we could have a great big firewall.</p><p>The only way to avoid and/or remove censorship from the Internet is to remove the idea that censorship is acceptable. But that idea is just too radical for the average schmuck who thinks he shouldn't have to even be aware that other people think differently than him/her. It has become okay to censor.  From "hate speech" to "pornography" to anarchy cookbooks.</p><p>But as I'm typing this I realize that perhaps a return to walled gardens for the majority of users could be a good thing. That way the politicians and their vocal self-absorbed constituents would never be aware of the stuff they want censored.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How could we , as citizens of the global Internet connected society , go about moving back towards an egalitarian Internet ? We as citizens simply can not .
We have very little control of the infrastructure of the Internet .
It just takes 1 popular politician , and we could have a great big firewall.The only way to avoid and/or remove censorship from the Internet is to remove the idea that censorship is acceptable .
But that idea is just too radical for the average schmuck who thinks he should n't have to even be aware that other people think differently than him/her .
It has become okay to censor .
From " hate speech " to " pornography " to anarchy cookbooks.But as I 'm typing this I realize that perhaps a return to walled gardens for the majority of users could be a good thing .
That way the politicians and their vocal self-absorbed constituents would never be aware of the stuff they want censored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How could we, as citizens of the global Internet connected society, go about moving back towards an egalitarian Internet?We as citizens simply cannot.
We have very little control of the infrastructure of the Internet.
It just takes 1 popular politician, and we could have a great big firewall.The only way to avoid and/or remove censorship from the Internet is to remove the idea that censorship is acceptable.
But that idea is just too radical for the average schmuck who thinks he shouldn't have to even be aware that other people think differently than him/her.
It has become okay to censor.
From "hate speech" to "pornography" to anarchy cookbooks.But as I'm typing this I realize that perhaps a return to walled gardens for the majority of users could be a good thing.
That way the politicians and their vocal self-absorbed constituents would never be aware of the stuff they want censored.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100422</id>
	<title>I &lt;3 Google.</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1265907600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Happy Valentines Day Google.  Thank you for the gift.  I &lt;3 U TOO!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Happy Valentines Day Google .
Thank you for the gift .
I &lt; 3 U TOO !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Happy Valentines Day Google.
Thank you for the gift.
I &lt;3 U TOO!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31110602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31106162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31107688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31105294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31110010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31107788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31102908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31111118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31104502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31102788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31106480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31102730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31104238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31105516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31104792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31108016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101462
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31109316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31103100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31108598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31107320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31106550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31109374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31103100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31109844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31106510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31105664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31109388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31106230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31110480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31108218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31102032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31102752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31104308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31102562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31104574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31103100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31110036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31106092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31110080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31102108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31103792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31105438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1342207_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1342207.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31105664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31109388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1342207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31107788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1342207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1342207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1342207.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31109374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31106092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31102908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31104574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100832
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31102108
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31102752
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101720
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31102788
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31105294
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31109316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100848
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101898
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31102562
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31106162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100666
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1342207.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1342207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101180
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31107320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31104238
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1342207.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31111118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31110010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31103792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31108016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100780
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31107688
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31106480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31102730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31106510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31103100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31109844
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31110036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31108598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31105516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31110602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31104502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1342207.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31108218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1342207.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31110480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1342207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101138
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31106230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31110080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31102032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31105438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101462
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31106550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1342207.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1342207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31104308
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1342207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31104792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1342207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31099792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31101148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1342207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1342207.31100526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
