<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_12_182223</id>
	<title>Texas Textbooks Battle Is Actually an American War</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1266003600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ideonexus writes <i>"I've been lackadaisical when it comes to following <a href="//news.slashdot.org/story/09/03/30/0151221/Mixed-Outcome-of-Texas-Textbook-Vote">stories</a> about <a href="//news.slashdot.org/story/09/03/24/1835255/Texas-Vote-May-Challenge-Teaching-of-Evolution">Texas</a> <a href="//news.slashdot.org/story/09/01/24/0742250/Texas-Board-of-Education-Supports-Evolution">schoolboard</a> attempts to slip creationism into biology textbooks, dismissing the stories as just 'dumbass Texans,' but what I didn't realize is that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?pagewanted=all">Texas schoolbooks set the standard for the rest of the country</a>. And it's not just Creationism that this Christian coalition is attempting to bring into schoolbooks, but a full frontal assault on history, politics, and the humanities that exploits the fact that final decisions are being made by a school board completely academically unqualified to make informed evaluations of the changes these lobbyists propose. This evangelical lobby has successfully had references to the American Constitution as a 'living document,' as textbooks have defined it since the 1950s, removed in favor of an 'enduring Constitution' not subject to change, as well as attempting to over-emphasize the role Christianity played in the founding of America. The leaders of these efforts outright admit they are attempting to redefine the way our children understand the political landscape so that, when they grow up, they will have preconceived notions of the American political system that favor their evangelical Christian goals."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ideonexus writes " I 've been lackadaisical when it comes to following stories about Texas schoolboard attempts to slip creationism into biology textbooks , dismissing the stories as just 'dumbass Texans, ' but what I did n't realize is that Texas schoolbooks set the standard for the rest of the country .
And it 's not just Creationism that this Christian coalition is attempting to bring into schoolbooks , but a full frontal assault on history , politics , and the humanities that exploits the fact that final decisions are being made by a school board completely academically unqualified to make informed evaluations of the changes these lobbyists propose .
This evangelical lobby has successfully had references to the American Constitution as a 'living document, ' as textbooks have defined it since the 1950s , removed in favor of an 'enduring Constitution ' not subject to change , as well as attempting to over-emphasize the role Christianity played in the founding of America .
The leaders of these efforts outright admit they are attempting to redefine the way our children understand the political landscape so that , when they grow up , they will have preconceived notions of the American political system that favor their evangelical Christian goals .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ideonexus writes "I've been lackadaisical when it comes to following stories about Texas schoolboard attempts to slip creationism into biology textbooks, dismissing the stories as just 'dumbass Texans,' but what I didn't realize is that Texas schoolbooks set the standard for the rest of the country.
And it's not just Creationism that this Christian coalition is attempting to bring into schoolbooks, but a full frontal assault on history, politics, and the humanities that exploits the fact that final decisions are being made by a school board completely academically unqualified to make informed evaluations of the changes these lobbyists propose.
This evangelical lobby has successfully had references to the American Constitution as a 'living document,' as textbooks have defined it since the 1950s, removed in favor of an 'enduring Constitution' not subject to change, as well as attempting to over-emphasize the role Christianity played in the founding of America.
The leaders of these efforts outright admit they are attempting to redefine the way our children understand the political landscape so that, when they grow up, they will have preconceived notions of the American political system that favor their evangelical Christian goals.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118072</id>
	<title>Re:Afraid of Creationism?</title>
	<author>Aurisor</author>
	<datestamp>1265966820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why are people so afraid of scientific debate? Isn't that what science is all about?</p></div></blockquote><p>No.  Science is the dialectic between theories and evidence.  Creationism is the effort to find or create "facts" that agree with scripture.  Science and creationism are as incompatible as royal decrees and parliamentary debate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are people so afraid of scientific debate ?
Is n't that what science is all about ? No .
Science is the dialectic between theories and evidence .
Creationism is the effort to find or create " facts " that agree with scripture .
Science and creationism are as incompatible as royal decrees and parliamentary debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are people so afraid of scientific debate?
Isn't that what science is all about?No.
Science is the dialectic between theories and evidence.
Creationism is the effort to find or create "facts" that agree with scripture.
Science and creationism are as incompatible as royal decrees and parliamentary debate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119882</id>
	<title>Re:Does curriculum matter anymore in the Google Ag</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265971320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I figure that there should be mandatory classes, at the mid to upper high school level,
in basic epistemology and metaphysics (i.e. meta-level topics such as):</p><p>-How to think carefully, logically.</p><p>-How to search.</p><p>-How to formulate good questions.</p><p>-How to recognize bias; people who are "speaking for effect"; trying to
influence you, and some of the common motivations why people do
that.</p><p>How to form beliefs using epistemic responsibility.</p><p>Then set them free to explore the information from a billion sources
that we have available to us at a mouse click today.</p><p>The scariest kind of graduate is one who has been taught only to
parrot, and to conform to orthodoxy, and who does not know how to question.</p></div><p>Do you really think that businesses, marketers, and advertisers would let schools educate people that the messages they are bombarded with every day that push unnecessary over-consumption?</p><p>Would car salesmen really like to to know they are motivated to push you towards one vehicle or away from another?</p><p>Would lobbyists want politicians to be able to realize when they are being purchased?  Would politicians want the public to be able to hear beyond the shit coming out of their mouths?</p><p>Would religious leaders across the country want their flocks getting an education on how to be a critical thinker?</p><p>No, my friend, your curriculum stands no chance of ever seeing the light of day, regardless how enlightened it might be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I figure that there should be mandatory classes , at the mid to upper high school level , in basic epistemology and metaphysics ( i.e .
meta-level topics such as ) : -How to think carefully , logically.-How to search.-How to formulate good questions.-How to recognize bias ; people who are " speaking for effect " ; trying to influence you , and some of the common motivations why people do that.How to form beliefs using epistemic responsibility.Then set them free to explore the information from a billion sources that we have available to us at a mouse click today.The scariest kind of graduate is one who has been taught only to parrot , and to conform to orthodoxy , and who does not know how to question.Do you really think that businesses , marketers , and advertisers would let schools educate people that the messages they are bombarded with every day that push unnecessary over-consumption ? Would car salesmen really like to to know they are motivated to push you towards one vehicle or away from another ? Would lobbyists want politicians to be able to realize when they are being purchased ?
Would politicians want the public to be able to hear beyond the shit coming out of their mouths ? Would religious leaders across the country want their flocks getting an education on how to be a critical thinker ? No , my friend , your curriculum stands no chance of ever seeing the light of day , regardless how enlightened it might be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I figure that there should be mandatory classes, at the mid to upper high school level,
in basic epistemology and metaphysics (i.e.
meta-level topics such as):-How to think carefully, logically.-How to search.-How to formulate good questions.-How to recognize bias; people who are "speaking for effect"; trying to
influence you, and some of the common motivations why people do
that.How to form beliefs using epistemic responsibility.Then set them free to explore the information from a billion sources
that we have available to us at a mouse click today.The scariest kind of graduate is one who has been taught only to
parrot, and to conform to orthodoxy, and who does not know how to question.Do you really think that businesses, marketers, and advertisers would let schools educate people that the messages they are bombarded with every day that push unnecessary over-consumption?Would car salesmen really like to to know they are motivated to push you towards one vehicle or away from another?Would lobbyists want politicians to be able to realize when they are being purchased?
Would politicians want the public to be able to hear beyond the shit coming out of their mouths?Would religious leaders across the country want their flocks getting an education on how to be a critical thinker?No, my friend, your curriculum stands no chance of ever seeing the light of day, regardless how enlightened it might be.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117434</id>
	<title>Afraid of Creationism?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266008220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My God!  What are people so afraid of?  That there is another widely believed explanation of how life on earth started?  Oh wait, evolution does not explain how it started.  Has anyone here witnessed evolution?  Isn't a requirement for science that something is first observed?  Should we skip that first step?  From the observation we create a hypothesis.  Then we test the hypothesis.  This was attempted with evolution but given up on as none of the tests confirmed it.  So instead of observing and testing, let's just call evolution fact and not let anyone debate it.  That's how science works, right?</p><p>Why are people so afraid of scientific debate?  Isn't that what science is all about?  Show the evidence and follow where it leads, right?  Can't evolution hold up against creationism?  If so, let creationism be heard.  If not, get rid of evolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My God !
What are people so afraid of ?
That there is another widely believed explanation of how life on earth started ?
Oh wait , evolution does not explain how it started .
Has anyone here witnessed evolution ?
Is n't a requirement for science that something is first observed ?
Should we skip that first step ?
From the observation we create a hypothesis .
Then we test the hypothesis .
This was attempted with evolution but given up on as none of the tests confirmed it .
So instead of observing and testing , let 's just call evolution fact and not let anyone debate it .
That 's how science works , right ? Why are people so afraid of scientific debate ?
Is n't that what science is all about ?
Show the evidence and follow where it leads , right ?
Ca n't evolution hold up against creationism ?
If so , let creationism be heard .
If not , get rid of evolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My God!
What are people so afraid of?
That there is another widely believed explanation of how life on earth started?
Oh wait, evolution does not explain how it started.
Has anyone here witnessed evolution?
Isn't a requirement for science that something is first observed?
Should we skip that first step?
From the observation we create a hypothesis.
Then we test the hypothesis.
This was attempted with evolution but given up on as none of the tests confirmed it.
So instead of observing and testing, let's just call evolution fact and not let anyone debate it.
That's how science works, right?Why are people so afraid of scientific debate?
Isn't that what science is all about?
Show the evidence and follow where it leads, right?
Can't evolution hold up against creationism?
If so, let creationism be heard.
If not, get rid of evolution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119632</id>
	<title>Let the 'Dark Ages' begin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265970660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This just shows we are heading for another dark ages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This just shows we are heading for another dark ages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just shows we are heading for another dark ages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122126</id>
	<title>Re:The irony is this...</title>
	<author>swillden</author>
	<datestamp>1265979960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The founding fathers were libertarians.</p></div><p>And we've suffered for our divergence from their elegant plan.  Not that their structure was perfect, but the underlying principles were well-founded, and we'd have been better served to stay closer to them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The founding fathers were libertarians.And we 've suffered for our divergence from their elegant plan .
Not that their structure was perfect , but the underlying principles were well-founded , and we 'd have been better served to stay closer to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The founding fathers were libertarians.And we've suffered for our divergence from their elegant plan.
Not that their structure was perfect, but the underlying principles were well-founded, and we'd have been better served to stay closer to them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121148</id>
	<title>Re:Religious People Cannot be Trusted!</title>
	<author>Stradivarius</author>
	<datestamp>1265975520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is clear to me that religious people cannot be trusted. They are liars. They lie to themselves. They CHOOSE to believe in fantasy instead of established, observable facts.</p></div><p>I've seen plenty of non-religious people lie to others, themselves, and choose to believe in fantasy instead of observable facts too.</p><p>People tell themselves this time is their last drink, last affair, last lie.  They tell their spouse they love them, even as they're cheating on that spouse.  They tell themselves their spouse loves them even when they know he/she sleeps around.  They tell themselves a charismatic political leader is going to solve all their problems.</p><p>They tell themselves that people with different world views are deceitful and selfish, while those who agree are honest and altruistic.</p><p>You don't need to be religious to have beliefs untethered to reality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is clear to me that religious people can not be trusted .
They are liars .
They lie to themselves .
They CHOOSE to believe in fantasy instead of established , observable facts.I 've seen plenty of non-religious people lie to others , themselves , and choose to believe in fantasy instead of observable facts too.People tell themselves this time is their last drink , last affair , last lie .
They tell their spouse they love them , even as they 're cheating on that spouse .
They tell themselves their spouse loves them even when they know he/she sleeps around .
They tell themselves a charismatic political leader is going to solve all their problems.They tell themselves that people with different world views are deceitful and selfish , while those who agree are honest and altruistic.You do n't need to be religious to have beliefs untethered to reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is clear to me that religious people cannot be trusted.
They are liars.
They lie to themselves.
They CHOOSE to believe in fantasy instead of established, observable facts.I've seen plenty of non-religious people lie to others, themselves, and choose to believe in fantasy instead of observable facts too.People tell themselves this time is their last drink, last affair, last lie.
They tell their spouse they love them, even as they're cheating on that spouse.
They tell themselves their spouse loves them even when they know he/she sleeps around.
They tell themselves a charismatic political leader is going to solve all their problems.They tell themselves that people with different world views are deceitful and selfish, while those who agree are honest and altruistic.You don't need to be religious to have beliefs untethered to reality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31126198</id>
	<title>Re:"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>ChrisMaple</author>
	<datestamp>1266069180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Note particularly the first word in "A well regulated Militia" is "a", not "the". Also note the concept "regulated". Since the word is "a" instead of "the", there can be more than one Militia in a given area, which argues against the (modern) assumption that militia is part of government. The use of the word "regulated" is further demonstration that Militia is considered separate from government, because nobody would consider it necessary to specify that part of government be regulated. So at the very least, people have the right to own guns in the context of a non-governmental group.</p><p>Being required to wait until the nation is threatened to join a Militia is just silly. The amendment says that Militia is necessary to the security of a free State. The state will not long be free if armed Militias aren't there before the state declares that it's being threatened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note particularly the first word in " A well regulated Militia " is " a " , not " the " .
Also note the concept " regulated " .
Since the word is " a " instead of " the " , there can be more than one Militia in a given area , which argues against the ( modern ) assumption that militia is part of government .
The use of the word " regulated " is further demonstration that Militia is considered separate from government , because nobody would consider it necessary to specify that part of government be regulated .
So at the very least , people have the right to own guns in the context of a non-governmental group.Being required to wait until the nation is threatened to join a Militia is just silly .
The amendment says that Militia is necessary to the security of a free State .
The state will not long be free if armed Militias are n't there before the state declares that it 's being threatened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note particularly the first word in "A well regulated Militia" is "a", not "the".
Also note the concept "regulated".
Since the word is "a" instead of "the", there can be more than one Militia in a given area, which argues against the (modern) assumption that militia is part of government.
The use of the word "regulated" is further demonstration that Militia is considered separate from government, because nobody would consider it necessary to specify that part of government be regulated.
So at the very least, people have the right to own guns in the context of a non-governmental group.Being required to wait until the nation is threatened to join a Militia is just silly.
The amendment says that Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.
The state will not long be free if armed Militias aren't there before the state declares that it's being threatened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120904</id>
	<title>Re:Second millennium Muslim civ, quit following</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265974680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>a combination of laziness and their purchasing power</p></div><p>yes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a combination of laziness and their purchasing poweryes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a combination of laziness and their purchasing poweryes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31123852</id>
	<title>Re:How bad could it be?</title>
	<author>RamonArjona</author>
	<datestamp>1265991120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm pretty sure he's the worst president since Eisenhower.  I mean, Nixon didn't get us into pointless wars or get caught torturing people.  Clinton had some poor judgement but balanced the budget.  Reagan helped topple the Soviet Union and had great hair while doing it.

It's entirely possible that GWB was the worst president since Buchanan.  Surely nobody on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is that old.  Except, you know, CowboyNeal....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure he 's the worst president since Eisenhower .
I mean , Nixon did n't get us into pointless wars or get caught torturing people .
Clinton had some poor judgement but balanced the budget .
Reagan helped topple the Soviet Union and had great hair while doing it .
It 's entirely possible that GWB was the worst president since Buchanan .
Surely nobody on / .
is that old .
Except , you know , CowboyNeal... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure he's the worst president since Eisenhower.
I mean, Nixon didn't get us into pointless wars or get caught torturing people.
Clinton had some poor judgement but balanced the budget.
Reagan helped topple the Soviet Union and had great hair while doing it.
It's entirely possible that GWB was the worst president since Buchanan.
Surely nobody on /.
is that old.
Except, you know, CowboyNeal....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119656</id>
	<title>Re:"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1265970720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A constitution is just a piece of paper, with no moral force behind it.  It exists only because people agree to let it set the framework for laws.  It stops existing as a useful document when it starts being ignored.  Its power exists only as much as the people respect the rule of law.  There is nothing that special about the US constitution except that it was one of the first.  Even though I admire it, I find it extremely disturbing when I see some people treating it as a something nearly sacred, or that it is perfect and the constitutions in other countries are flawed, etc.  The US constitution is really not much more than a treaty between 13 fledgling states.<br><br>In the time since the US constitution was ratified the entire structure and organization of the US has changed.  We are no longer just a set of independent states, and we can never go back to being an extremely loose coalition no matter what the constitution says.<br><br>The constitution isn't even all that clear, despite what some true believers say.  It is not a set of laws, and not even a framework for laws. It's a framework for a government is all.  It is amazingly vague in some places, and amazingly dated in some places where it is specific.  The reason it is still viable after all this time is because it isn't highly specific, and thus is adaptable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A constitution is just a piece of paper , with no moral force behind it .
It exists only because people agree to let it set the framework for laws .
It stops existing as a useful document when it starts being ignored .
Its power exists only as much as the people respect the rule of law .
There is nothing that special about the US constitution except that it was one of the first .
Even though I admire it , I find it extremely disturbing when I see some people treating it as a something nearly sacred , or that it is perfect and the constitutions in other countries are flawed , etc .
The US constitution is really not much more than a treaty between 13 fledgling states.In the time since the US constitution was ratified the entire structure and organization of the US has changed .
We are no longer just a set of independent states , and we can never go back to being an extremely loose coalition no matter what the constitution says.The constitution is n't even all that clear , despite what some true believers say .
It is not a set of laws , and not even a framework for laws .
It 's a framework for a government is all .
It is amazingly vague in some places , and amazingly dated in some places where it is specific .
The reason it is still viable after all this time is because it is n't highly specific , and thus is adaptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A constitution is just a piece of paper, with no moral force behind it.
It exists only because people agree to let it set the framework for laws.
It stops existing as a useful document when it starts being ignored.
Its power exists only as much as the people respect the rule of law.
There is nothing that special about the US constitution except that it was one of the first.
Even though I admire it, I find it extremely disturbing when I see some people treating it as a something nearly sacred, or that it is perfect and the constitutions in other countries are flawed, etc.
The US constitution is really not much more than a treaty between 13 fledgling states.In the time since the US constitution was ratified the entire structure and organization of the US has changed.
We are no longer just a set of independent states, and we can never go back to being an extremely loose coalition no matter what the constitution says.The constitution isn't even all that clear, despite what some true believers say.
It is not a set of laws, and not even a framework for laws.
It's a framework for a government is all.
It is amazingly vague in some places, and amazingly dated in some places where it is specific.
The reason it is still viable after all this time is because it isn't highly specific, and thus is adaptable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119642</id>
	<title>Science Vs. Religion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265970720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't we live in harmony with the two - taking the best from both?</p><p>There is something science teaches and there is something religion teaches. Science teaches direct, observable fact and religion teaches values/morals. A logical side and an emotional side.</p><p>Obviously pure science is not working when there is feminists running about (ironically quite illogical) and the traditional, biological way of living is in disorder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't we live in harmony with the two - taking the best from both ? There is something science teaches and there is something religion teaches .
Science teaches direct , observable fact and religion teaches values/morals .
A logical side and an emotional side.Obviously pure science is not working when there is feminists running about ( ironically quite illogical ) and the traditional , biological way of living is in disorder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't we live in harmony with the two - taking the best from both?There is something science teaches and there is something religion teaches.
Science teaches direct, observable fact and religion teaches values/morals.
A logical side and an emotional side.Obviously pure science is not working when there is feminists running about (ironically quite illogical) and the traditional, biological way of living is in disorder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31124720</id>
	<title>Re:Afraid of Creationism?</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1266000600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.... Over a few generations, all bacteria will be resistant. That's evolution.....</p><p>I would call that adaptation. That is vastly different from a theory that says birds came from reptiles or people from apes. Just because an organism, such as bacteria, adapt to a toxic environment doesn't make a new organism. It's still the same old bacteria with a new capability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.... Over a few generations , all bacteria will be resistant .
That 's evolution.....I would call that adaptation .
That is vastly different from a theory that says birds came from reptiles or people from apes .
Just because an organism , such as bacteria , adapt to a toxic environment does n't make a new organism .
It 's still the same old bacteria with a new capability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.... Over a few generations, all bacteria will be resistant.
That's evolution.....I would call that adaptation.
That is vastly different from a theory that says birds came from reptiles or people from apes.
Just because an organism, such as bacteria, adapt to a toxic environment doesn't make a new organism.
It's still the same old bacteria with a new capability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119824</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265971140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>More elementally, they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div></blockquote><p>True.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not true.  Christian has a specific definition, which pretty much rules out the Theists and the Calvinists (ok, they believed in Jesus, but not as a means of salvation) that made up a good chunk of our founding fathers (the remaining being largely Puritans, and Church of England^WVirginia members who at the time of the founding were imprisoning Baptists, collecting tithes by tax, and being all-around poster children for the separation of Church and State).</p><p>The founding fathers WERE religious, and founded our country on religious ideals (such as the inalienable rights granted to every human by their Creator, with varying definitions of what it means to be human), and they had put centuries of religious violence behind them by founding America, as you said, without allowing government to influence religion (many had come from a land whose king had beheaded his way to his own personal religion) or religion to influence government (by the time America was founded, Islam had been killing itself for centuries).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>More elementally , they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians ...True.Not true .
Christian has a specific definition , which pretty much rules out the Theists and the Calvinists ( ok , they believed in Jesus , but not as a means of salvation ) that made up a good chunk of our founding fathers ( the remaining being largely Puritans , and Church of England ^ WVirginia members who at the time of the founding were imprisoning Baptists , collecting tithes by tax , and being all-around poster children for the separation of Church and State ) .The founding fathers WERE religious , and founded our country on religious ideals ( such as the inalienable rights granted to every human by their Creator , with varying definitions of what it means to be human ) , and they had put centuries of religious violence behind them by founding America , as you said , without allowing government to influence religion ( many had come from a land whose king had beheaded his way to his own personal religion ) or religion to influence government ( by the time America was founded , Islam had been killing itself for centuries ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More elementally, they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians ...True.Not true.
Christian has a specific definition, which pretty much rules out the Theists and the Calvinists (ok, they believed in Jesus, but not as a means of salvation) that made up a good chunk of our founding fathers (the remaining being largely Puritans, and Church of England^WVirginia members who at the time of the founding were imprisoning Baptists, collecting tithes by tax, and being all-around poster children for the separation of Church and State).The founding fathers WERE religious, and founded our country on religious ideals (such as the inalienable rights granted to every human by their Creator, with varying definitions of what it means to be human), and they had put centuries of religious violence behind them by founding America, as you said, without allowing government to influence religion (many had come from a land whose king had beheaded his way to his own personal religion) or religion to influence government (by the time America was founded, Islam had been killing itself for centuries).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118942</id>
	<title>Re:Well, 'fair dos' to them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265968920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Whilst I personally do not agree with their standpoint, at least they are mounting a vigorous, forward-looking defense of their beliefs.<br>No worse than state-sponsored Madrassas in Pakistan and elsewhere.<br>It's up to the rest of society to fight their corner equally well, in the interests of balance; unfortunately only the fanatics seem to have the energy to do this...</p></div><p>Kicking Texas out of the union would neatly solve this problem, and would increase the average IQ of the United States by 20 points!</p><p>A win win situation!</p><p>(I really don't believe this but goddamn, why do these stories always come out of Texas?)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whilst I personally do not agree with their standpoint , at least they are mounting a vigorous , forward-looking defense of their beliefs.No worse than state-sponsored Madrassas in Pakistan and elsewhere.It 's up to the rest of society to fight their corner equally well , in the interests of balance ; unfortunately only the fanatics seem to have the energy to do this...Kicking Texas out of the union would neatly solve this problem , and would increase the average IQ of the United States by 20 points ! A win win situation !
( I really do n't believe this but goddamn , why do these stories always come out of Texas ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whilst I personally do not agree with their standpoint, at least they are mounting a vigorous, forward-looking defense of their beliefs.No worse than state-sponsored Madrassas in Pakistan and elsewhere.It's up to the rest of society to fight their corner equally well, in the interests of balance; unfortunately only the fanatics seem to have the energy to do this...Kicking Texas out of the union would neatly solve this problem, and would increase the average IQ of the United States by 20 points!A win win situation!
(I really don't believe this but goddamn, why do these stories always come out of Texas?
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118740</id>
	<title>Re:children at risk</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1265968440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Adding "under god" to the Texas pledge that all Texas public school children are forced to say every day.</p></div><p>No, they aren't forced to say a damn thing. Or at least, they aren't legally (although it wouldn't surprise me to find out that a teacher was doing so illegally). That's longstanding US Supreme Court <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West\_Virginia\_State\_Board\_of\_Education\_v.\_Barnette" title="wikipedia.org">precedent</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Adding " under god " to the Texas pledge that all Texas public school children are forced to say every day.No , they are n't forced to say a damn thing .
Or at least , they are n't legally ( although it would n't surprise me to find out that a teacher was doing so illegally ) .
That 's longstanding US Supreme Court precedent [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adding "under god" to the Texas pledge that all Texas public school children are forced to say every day.No, they aren't forced to say a damn thing.
Or at least, they aren't legally (although it wouldn't surprise me to find out that a teacher was doing so illegally).
That's longstanding US Supreme Court precedent [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121130</id>
	<title>"Dumbass Texans"?</title>
	<author>Sounder40</author>
	<datestamp>1265975400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it really necessary to disparage every citizen of a specific state?  And which Texans are you calling "dumbasses"?  The ultra left-wingers in Austin or the West U folks in Houston?  The ultra right-wingers in the NASA area south of Houston?  The "buckle of the bible belt" East Texans?  The nouveau-riche in Dallas and Houston?  The Tex-Mex groups in San Antonio and along the border?<br><br>Texas is too diverse a state to label everyone with one brush.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it really necessary to disparage every citizen of a specific state ?
And which Texans are you calling " dumbasses " ?
The ultra left-wingers in Austin or the West U folks in Houston ?
The ultra right-wingers in the NASA area south of Houston ?
The " buckle of the bible belt " East Texans ?
The nouveau-riche in Dallas and Houston ?
The Tex-Mex groups in San Antonio and along the border ? Texas is too diverse a state to label everyone with one brush .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it really necessary to disparage every citizen of a specific state?
And which Texans are you calling "dumbasses"?
The ultra left-wingers in Austin or the West U folks in Houston?
The ultra right-wingers in the NASA area south of Houston?
The "buckle of the bible belt" East Texans?
The nouveau-riche in Dallas and Houston?
The Tex-Mex groups in San Antonio and along the border?Texas is too diverse a state to label everyone with one brush.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117452</id>
	<title>children at risk</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1266008280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is my favorite thing Texas has done in the name of promoting christianity.  Adding "under god" to the Texas pledge that all Texas public school children are forced to say every day.  Now, I have not problem with a pledge.  It is a fetish thing when people want to show allegiance without have to do anything uncomfortable to demonstrate allegiance.  I do have an issue with adding the notion of god, because that make it more a religious prayer than a country thing.
<p>
Here is the problem.  The bible, and jesus, pretty much considered the worst thing one can do it be a hypocrite.  A hypocrite is one who does things in a crowd to make others believe he or she has faith.  Here is a famous verse of prayer.
<br>
Mathew 6:5-6"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.  But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."
</p><p>
We also know the verses on giving money to be seen.  The idea is that one does these things because they are in our heart, not to gain profit.  And we are putting our children in jeopardy when we ask them to do these things we know are wrong, such as acting like hypocrites.
</p><p>
The problem with these nut cases in Texas is they have no faith.  No amount of science will sway me from what i feel to be true.  No amount of world religions will change my mind what I know to be right.  This does not mean I am inflexible, but that flexibility comes with experience, not cult brain washing.  And because these people have not faith, how can they build faith in their children.  They can't.  So they limit their exposure to the world knowing the false faith could never withstand the truths in the world.
</p><p>
In some ways I agree with this.  If one is not able to build faith in a child, then ones options are limited.  What I disagree with is making all the rest of us suffer.  Sure, a parent may have a right to screw up their own child, but that does not mean they have the right to screw up everyone else's.  The parent can home school, turn off the TV, but there is no reason that those of us who are responsible should have to suffer because a few are irresponsible.  It would be like saying I can't buy a beer because some children weren't taught discipline, or because genetically they can't have beer, and haven't been trained to stay away from it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is my favorite thing Texas has done in the name of promoting christianity .
Adding " under god " to the Texas pledge that all Texas public school children are forced to say every day .
Now , I have not problem with a pledge .
It is a fetish thing when people want to show allegiance without have to do anything uncomfortable to demonstrate allegiance .
I do have an issue with adding the notion of god , because that make it more a religious prayer than a country thing .
Here is the problem .
The bible , and jesus , pretty much considered the worst thing one can do it be a hypocrite .
A hypocrite is one who does things in a crowd to make others believe he or she has faith .
Here is a famous verse of prayer .
Mathew 6 : 5-6 " When you pray , you are not to be like the hypocrites ; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men .
Truly I say to you , they have their reward in full .
But you , when you pray , go into your inner room , close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret , and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you .
" We also know the verses on giving money to be seen .
The idea is that one does these things because they are in our heart , not to gain profit .
And we are putting our children in jeopardy when we ask them to do these things we know are wrong , such as acting like hypocrites .
The problem with these nut cases in Texas is they have no faith .
No amount of science will sway me from what i feel to be true .
No amount of world religions will change my mind what I know to be right .
This does not mean I am inflexible , but that flexibility comes with experience , not cult brain washing .
And because these people have not faith , how can they build faith in their children .
They ca n't .
So they limit their exposure to the world knowing the false faith could never withstand the truths in the world .
In some ways I agree with this .
If one is not able to build faith in a child , then ones options are limited .
What I disagree with is making all the rest of us suffer .
Sure , a parent may have a right to screw up their own child , but that does not mean they have the right to screw up everyone else 's .
The parent can home school , turn off the TV , but there is no reason that those of us who are responsible should have to suffer because a few are irresponsible .
It would be like saying I ca n't buy a beer because some children were n't taught discipline , or because genetically they ca n't have beer , and have n't been trained to stay away from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is my favorite thing Texas has done in the name of promoting christianity.
Adding "under god" to the Texas pledge that all Texas public school children are forced to say every day.
Now, I have not problem with a pledge.
It is a fetish thing when people want to show allegiance without have to do anything uncomfortable to demonstrate allegiance.
I do have an issue with adding the notion of god, because that make it more a religious prayer than a country thing.
Here is the problem.
The bible, and jesus, pretty much considered the worst thing one can do it be a hypocrite.
A hypocrite is one who does things in a crowd to make others believe he or she has faith.
Here is a famous verse of prayer.
Mathew 6:5-6"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men.
Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.
But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.
"

We also know the verses on giving money to be seen.
The idea is that one does these things because they are in our heart, not to gain profit.
And we are putting our children in jeopardy when we ask them to do these things we know are wrong, such as acting like hypocrites.
The problem with these nut cases in Texas is they have no faith.
No amount of science will sway me from what i feel to be true.
No amount of world religions will change my mind what I know to be right.
This does not mean I am inflexible, but that flexibility comes with experience, not cult brain washing.
And because these people have not faith, how can they build faith in their children.
They can't.
So they limit their exposure to the world knowing the false faith could never withstand the truths in the world.
In some ways I agree with this.
If one is not able to build faith in a child, then ones options are limited.
What I disagree with is making all the rest of us suffer.
Sure, a parent may have a right to screw up their own child, but that does not mean they have the right to screw up everyone else's.
The parent can home school, turn off the TV, but there is no reason that those of us who are responsible should have to suffer because a few are irresponsible.
It would be like saying I can't buy a beer because some children weren't taught discipline, or because genetically they can't have beer, and haven't been trained to stay away from it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122974</id>
	<title>Re:The irony is this...</title>
	<author>fiannaFailMan</author>
	<datestamp>1265984220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bottom line is this, if you believe in the Constitution as it is written, there may not be any federal right to entitlements making, but there's no right to having a big army or any of the stuff the right wing wants, either.</p><p>The founding fathers were libertarians.</p></div><p>And the UK Parliament began as a royal council to the King in feudal England. Some institutions gradually accumulate more power as time wears on, society becomes more complex, and people agree that more and more power has to be centralized in order to keep things running more smoothly in an increasingly interconnected world. The founding fathers of the US didn't live in an age of nuclear weapons, automatic guns, excessive greenhouse gas emissions, or any of the other trappings of 21st century life. It's OK to deviate from what they wanted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bottom line is this , if you believe in the Constitution as it is written , there may not be any federal right to entitlements making , but there 's no right to having a big army or any of the stuff the right wing wants , either.The founding fathers were libertarians.And the UK Parliament began as a royal council to the King in feudal England .
Some institutions gradually accumulate more power as time wears on , society becomes more complex , and people agree that more and more power has to be centralized in order to keep things running more smoothly in an increasingly interconnected world .
The founding fathers of the US did n't live in an age of nuclear weapons , automatic guns , excessive greenhouse gas emissions , or any of the other trappings of 21st century life .
It 's OK to deviate from what they wanted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bottom line is this, if you believe in the Constitution as it is written, there may not be any federal right to entitlements making, but there's no right to having a big army or any of the stuff the right wing wants, either.The founding fathers were libertarians.And the UK Parliament began as a royal council to the King in feudal England.
Some institutions gradually accumulate more power as time wears on, society becomes more complex, and people agree that more and more power has to be centralized in order to keep things running more smoothly in an increasingly interconnected world.
The founding fathers of the US didn't live in an age of nuclear weapons, automatic guns, excessive greenhouse gas emissions, or any of the other trappings of 21st century life.
It's OK to deviate from what they wanted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121516</id>
	<title>Re:"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265977260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If society has progressed, where are the repealed statues or constitutional amendments to prove it?  When 36 states have anti-sodomy laws and only begrudgingly stop enforcing them because SCOTUS says so, I think there's a serious problem with just WTF <em>the will of the people</em> is, and treating the constitution as "living" doesn't really fix things.  They're <em>still</em> evil people. I'd rather they be held accountable, get kicked out of the union, or whatever.</p><p>Letting SCOTUS just Make Things Up just creates a conflict between people and government and disrespect for the law.  Sodomy prohibitions should have been wiped out by the people taking a stand on it, either by passing an amendment or repealing the ridiculous state laws. If, without any citizen action or passion, it's "unconstitutional" today, then maybe it's constitutional tomorrow.  "Progress" isn't always what you think it will be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If society has progressed , where are the repealed statues or constitutional amendments to prove it ?
When 36 states have anti-sodomy laws and only begrudgingly stop enforcing them because SCOTUS says so , I think there 's a serious problem with just WTF the will of the people is , and treating the constitution as " living " does n't really fix things .
They 're still evil people .
I 'd rather they be held accountable , get kicked out of the union , or whatever.Letting SCOTUS just Make Things Up just creates a conflict between people and government and disrespect for the law .
Sodomy prohibitions should have been wiped out by the people taking a stand on it , either by passing an amendment or repealing the ridiculous state laws .
If , without any citizen action or passion , it 's " unconstitutional " today , then maybe it 's constitutional tomorrow .
" Progress " is n't always what you think it will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If society has progressed, where are the repealed statues or constitutional amendments to prove it?
When 36 states have anti-sodomy laws and only begrudgingly stop enforcing them because SCOTUS says so, I think there's a serious problem with just WTF the will of the people is, and treating the constitution as "living" doesn't really fix things.
They're still evil people.
I'd rather they be held accountable, get kicked out of the union, or whatever.Letting SCOTUS just Make Things Up just creates a conflict between people and government and disrespect for the law.
Sodomy prohibitions should have been wiped out by the people taking a stand on it, either by passing an amendment or repealing the ridiculous state laws.
If, without any citizen action or passion, it's "unconstitutional" today, then maybe it's constitutional tomorrow.
"Progress" isn't always what you think it will be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121410</id>
	<title>Re:Seeing a problem and missing the point.</title>
	<author>aaarrrgggh</author>
	<datestamp>1265976720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time I think of textbook debates, I think back to "What would the Tasady do?"</p><p>There was a lengthy chapter on the Tasady in my 4th grade social studies textbook. In 9th grade I learned that it was just an invention of Ferdinand Marcos' regime that fooled researchers for a little over a decade.</p><p>The goal of school should be learning to learn, and learning to think through an issue or problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time I think of textbook debates , I think back to " What would the Tasady do ?
" There was a lengthy chapter on the Tasady in my 4th grade social studies textbook .
In 9th grade I learned that it was just an invention of Ferdinand Marcos ' regime that fooled researchers for a little over a decade.The goal of school should be learning to learn , and learning to think through an issue or problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time I think of textbook debates, I think back to "What would the Tasady do?
"There was a lengthy chapter on the Tasady in my 4th grade social studies textbook.
In 9th grade I learned that it was just an invention of Ferdinand Marcos' regime that fooled researchers for a little over a decade.The goal of school should be learning to learn, and learning to think through an issue or problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118044</id>
	<title>Re:People weren't aware of this?</title>
	<author>dasdrewid</author>
	<datestamp>1265966760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How can anyone have missed it?</p></div><p>Maybe he was brought up on Texas public school books?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can anyone have missed it ? Maybe he was brought up on Texas public school books ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can anyone have missed it?Maybe he was brought up on Texas public school books?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31165986</id>
	<title>so you'll cover geologists vs flat earthers?</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1265054700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about astronomers vs those who question heliocentrism?  Since you want to "cover both sides of the debate", and all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about astronomers vs those who question heliocentrism ?
Since you want to " cover both sides of the debate " , and all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about astronomers vs those who question heliocentrism?
Since you want to "cover both sides of the debate", and all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31134102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118068</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265966820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only problem with "thus building a wall of separation between Church &amp; State" is

"their legislature should make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"

This is the same as the Constitution:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

I didn't see our legislature establishing a religion forcing you to go to church every Sunday and doing all kinds of rituals like countries that have an established religion.  By your logic, forcing God out of public school is same as establishing the religion of atheism.  This is a double standard.  Students need to have all the information to do critical thinking.  They will decide what they want to believe by examining all the facts.   Censorship is for tyrants. Of course, government re-education camps also known as public schools are brain washing camps.  They did a great job on you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only problem with " thus building a wall of separation between Church &amp; State " is " their legislature should make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof , " This is the same as the Constitution : Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ; I did n't see our legislature establishing a religion forcing you to go to church every Sunday and doing all kinds of rituals like countries that have an established religion .
By your logic , forcing God out of public school is same as establishing the religion of atheism .
This is a double standard .
Students need to have all the information to do critical thinking .
They will decide what they want to believe by examining all the facts .
Censorship is for tyrants .
Of course , government re-education camps also known as public schools are brain washing camps .
They did a great job on you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only problem with "thus building a wall of separation between Church &amp; State" is

"their legislature should make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"

This is the same as the Constitution:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

I didn't see our legislature establishing a religion forcing you to go to church every Sunday and doing all kinds of rituals like countries that have an established religion.
By your logic, forcing God out of public school is same as establishing the religion of atheism.
This is a double standard.
Students need to have all the information to do critical thinking.
They will decide what they want to believe by examining all the facts.
Censorship is for tyrants.
Of course, government re-education camps also known as public schools are brain washing camps.
They did a great job on you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119840</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new here</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1265971260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>6,378 kilometers (radius of earth = rE)<br>740,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilometers (radius of observable universe = rU)</p><p>Significance of Earth and people in Universe, proportionally = no more than</p><p>4Pi rE^2<br>------------<br>4/3 Pi rU^3</p><p>=<br>1<br>----<br>3.3x10^72</p><p>=</p><p>1<br>---<br>3,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000</p><p>Are you ok with that conception of God and his works? It's obviously not<br>about us in any meaningful sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>6,378 kilometers ( radius of earth = rE ) 740,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilometers ( radius of observable universe = rU ) Significance of Earth and people in Universe , proportionally = no more than4Pi rE ^ 2------------4/3 Pi rU ^ 3 = 1----3.3x10 ^ 72 = 1---3,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000Are you ok with that conception of God and his works ?
It 's obviously notabout us in any meaningful sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>6,378 kilometers (radius of earth = rE)740,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilometers (radius of observable universe = rU)Significance of Earth and people in Universe, proportionally = no more than4Pi rE^2------------4/3 Pi rU^3=1----3.3x10^72=1---3,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000Are you ok with that conception of God and his works?
It's obviously notabout us in any meaningful sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118460</id>
	<title>I just downloaded a great physics book</title>
	<author>bugs2squash</author>
	<datestamp>1265967720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>from <a href="http://www.lightandmatter.com/" title="lightandmatter.com">Benjamin Crowell</a> [lightandmatter.com]. I liked it so much I payed for a printed copy from lulu. It seems to me that these are the textbooks of the future, not created by school boards, but chosen by individual teachers from a wealth of free or low-cost online material. If you don't like textbooks, write one, publish it online and at lulu and give teachers the right to choose their own materials for teaching.</htmltext>
<tokenext>from Benjamin Crowell [ lightandmatter.com ] .
I liked it so much I payed for a printed copy from lulu .
It seems to me that these are the textbooks of the future , not created by school boards , but chosen by individual teachers from a wealth of free or low-cost online material .
If you do n't like textbooks , write one , publish it online and at lulu and give teachers the right to choose their own materials for teaching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from Benjamin Crowell [lightandmatter.com].
I liked it so much I payed for a printed copy from lulu.
It seems to me that these are the textbooks of the future, not created by school boards, but chosen by individual teachers from a wealth of free or low-cost online material.
If you don't like textbooks, write one, publish it online and at lulu and give teachers the right to choose their own materials for teaching.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117482</id>
	<title>Re:"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266008340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's living in the interpretation of the Constitution.   Any sufficiently vague legal document is going to be open to interpretation which is going to change as society goes on.   I guarantee your mortgage is not as open to interpretation as the constitution.</p></div><p>What's open to interpretation about "shall not be infringed"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's living in the interpretation of the Constitution .
Any sufficiently vague legal document is going to be open to interpretation which is going to change as society goes on .
I guarantee your mortgage is not as open to interpretation as the constitution.What 's open to interpretation about " shall not be infringed " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's living in the interpretation of the Constitution.
Any sufficiently vague legal document is going to be open to interpretation which is going to change as society goes on.
I guarantee your mortgage is not as open to interpretation as the constitution.What's open to interpretation about "shall not be infringed"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117586</id>
	<title>Not just science, history as well.</title>
	<author>VeeCee</author>
	<datestamp>1265965440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Keep in mind that it's not just creationism that Texas educators are trying to get into their textbooks.  There is a strong push to rewrite current history textbooks to paint conservatism in a sympathetic light as well as to downplay the importance of the civil rights movement.

Read more about it here <a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/conservative\_vision\_ascendant\_in\_latest\_texas\_hist.php" title="talkingpointsmemo.com" rel="nofollow">http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/conservative\_vision\_ascendant\_in\_latest\_texas\_hist.php</a> [talkingpointsmemo.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep in mind that it 's not just creationism that Texas educators are trying to get into their textbooks .
There is a strong push to rewrite current history textbooks to paint conservatism in a sympathetic light as well as to downplay the importance of the civil rights movement .
Read more about it here http : //tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/conservative \ _vision \ _ascendant \ _in \ _latest \ _texas \ _hist.php [ talkingpointsmemo.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep in mind that it's not just creationism that Texas educators are trying to get into their textbooks.
There is a strong push to rewrite current history textbooks to paint conservatism in a sympathetic light as well as to downplay the importance of the civil rights movement.
Read more about it here http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/conservative\_vision\_ascendant\_in\_latest\_texas\_hist.php [talkingpointsmemo.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31151602</id>
	<title>Re:"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>mhajicek</author>
	<datestamp>1266248760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Open to interpretation has been "Arms"</p></div><p>That is only considered "open to interpretation" by those who wish it to be interpreted differently than the English language would require.  The word "arms" is synonymous with "weapons."  That is not open to interpretation.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"bear Arms" (this phrase historically means to be part of an army; does this amendment protect your right to join a militia, or apply to individuals acting alone?)</p></div><p>"Bear arms" means "carry weapons."  That is not open to interpretation.  It historically means "carry weapons", not "be part of an army."  Where did you get that rubbish?  If they were trying to protect the people's right to join a militia, they would have said so.  The only reference to a militia is in a descriptive add-on.

Do you understand sentence structure in the English language?  Consider the following: "Because the road was icy and the driver was going too fast, he was unable to brake in time when a fox ran into the road in front of him."  When you break off all the description, you have "He was unable to break in time."  The phrase "Because the road was icy and the driver was going too fast," adds more information, but does not change the fact that "He was unable to break in time".  "when a fox ran into the road in front of him." also supplies more information, but still doesn't change the fact that "He was unable to break in time."

Now take what we've learned and apply it to "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Strip off the extra description and we have "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  "Arms" means "weapons."  "Bear" means "carry."  You'll have a hard time disputing those.  So in more modern terms we have "The right of the people to keep and carry weapons shall not be infringed."  The rest is description, offering a reason.  Even if one were to disagree with the reason offered, which is that a well trained militia is necessary to the security of a free state ("regulated" meant "trained" at the time), it would not invalidate the direct statement that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  There is also the matter that a militia is NOT a standing army; it is an armed populace rising to a cause.  Bearing this in mind, it is obvious that the Framers intended that the populace maintain the ability to overthrow the government by force as they did.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>does the Constitution guarantee a fundamental right for all US citizens to wield personal nuclear weapons? Where is the limit?</p></div><p>Yes, the constitution guarantees the right of the people to own and wield ANY kind of weapon they're able to.  There are no limits.  If there were limits, you would see something like "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms capable of killing less than 1000 people at a time, shall not be infringed." or "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, except for Weapons of Mass Destruction, shall not be infringed."  Therefore, if society wishes a limit to be placed on the right to bear arms, an additional amendment would be required.  Any attempt to "interpret" in a limit which is not stated, just because you think such a limit is a good idea, would be a falsification.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Open to interpretation has been " Arms " That is only considered " open to interpretation " by those who wish it to be interpreted differently than the English language would require .
The word " arms " is synonymous with " weapons .
" That is not open to interpretation .
" bear Arms " ( this phrase historically means to be part of an army ; does this amendment protect your right to join a militia , or apply to individuals acting alone ?
) " Bear arms " means " carry weapons .
" That is not open to interpretation .
It historically means " carry weapons " , not " be part of an army .
" Where did you get that rubbish ?
If they were trying to protect the people 's right to join a militia , they would have said so .
The only reference to a militia is in a descriptive add-on .
Do you understand sentence structure in the English language ?
Consider the following : " Because the road was icy and the driver was going too fast , he was unable to brake in time when a fox ran into the road in front of him .
" When you break off all the description , you have " He was unable to break in time .
" The phrase " Because the road was icy and the driver was going too fast , " adds more information , but does not change the fact that " He was unable to break in time " .
" when a fox ran into the road in front of him .
" also supplies more information , but still does n't change the fact that " He was unable to break in time .
" Now take what we 've learned and apply it to " A well regulated Militia , being necessary to the security of a free State , the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed .
" Strip off the extra description and we have " The right of the people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed .
" " Arms " means " weapons .
" " Bear " means " carry .
" You 'll have a hard time disputing those .
So in more modern terms we have " The right of the people to keep and carry weapons shall not be infringed .
" The rest is description , offering a reason .
Even if one were to disagree with the reason offered , which is that a well trained militia is necessary to the security of a free state ( " regulated " meant " trained " at the time ) , it would not invalidate the direct statement that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed .
There is also the matter that a militia is NOT a standing army ; it is an armed populace rising to a cause .
Bearing this in mind , it is obvious that the Framers intended that the populace maintain the ability to overthrow the government by force as they did .
does the Constitution guarantee a fundamental right for all US citizens to wield personal nuclear weapons ?
Where is the limit ? Yes , the constitution guarantees the right of the people to own and wield ANY kind of weapon they 're able to .
There are no limits .
If there were limits , you would see something like " A well regulated Militia , being necessary to the security of a free State , the right of the people to keep and bear Arms capable of killing less than 1000 people at a time , shall not be infringed .
" or " A well regulated Militia , being necessary to the security of a free State , the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , except for Weapons of Mass Destruction , shall not be infringed .
" Therefore , if society wishes a limit to be placed on the right to bear arms , an additional amendment would be required .
Any attempt to " interpret " in a limit which is not stated , just because you think such a limit is a good idea , would be a falsification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open to interpretation has been "Arms"That is only considered "open to interpretation" by those who wish it to be interpreted differently than the English language would require.
The word "arms" is synonymous with "weapons.
"  That is not open to interpretation.
"bear Arms" (this phrase historically means to be part of an army; does this amendment protect your right to join a militia, or apply to individuals acting alone?
)"Bear arms" means "carry weapons.
"  That is not open to interpretation.
It historically means "carry weapons", not "be part of an army.
"  Where did you get that rubbish?
If they were trying to protect the people's right to join a militia, they would have said so.
The only reference to a militia is in a descriptive add-on.
Do you understand sentence structure in the English language?
Consider the following: "Because the road was icy and the driver was going too fast, he was unable to brake in time when a fox ran into the road in front of him.
"  When you break off all the description, you have "He was unable to break in time.
"  The phrase "Because the road was icy and the driver was going too fast," adds more information, but does not change the fact that "He was unable to break in time".
"when a fox ran into the road in front of him.
" also supplies more information, but still doesn't change the fact that "He was unable to break in time.
"

Now take what we've learned and apply it to "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
"  Strip off the extra description and we have "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
"  "Arms" means "weapons.
"  "Bear" means "carry.
"  You'll have a hard time disputing those.
So in more modern terms we have "The right of the people to keep and carry weapons shall not be infringed.
"  The rest is description, offering a reason.
Even if one were to disagree with the reason offered, which is that a well trained militia is necessary to the security of a free state ("regulated" meant "trained" at the time), it would not invalidate the direct statement that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
There is also the matter that a militia is NOT a standing army; it is an armed populace rising to a cause.
Bearing this in mind, it is obvious that the Framers intended that the populace maintain the ability to overthrow the government by force as they did.
does the Constitution guarantee a fundamental right for all US citizens to wield personal nuclear weapons?
Where is the limit?Yes, the constitution guarantees the right of the people to own and wield ANY kind of weapon they're able to.
There are no limits.
If there were limits, you would see something like "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms capable of killing less than 1000 people at a time, shall not be infringed.
" or "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, except for Weapons of Mass Destruction, shall not be infringed.
"  Therefore, if society wishes a limit to be placed on the right to bear arms, an additional amendment would be required.
Any attempt to "interpret" in a limit which is not stated, just because you think such a limit is a good idea, would be a falsification.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31123834</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory Richard Feynman on Textbooks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265991000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was a brilliant post.  Thank you for republishing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was a brilliant post .
Thank you for republishing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was a brilliant post.
Thank you for republishing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119692</id>
	<title>Re:How bad could it be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265970840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the South has Risen again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the South has Risen again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the South has Risen again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118338</id>
	<title>Re:Lies my Teacher Told Me...</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1265967420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>James Loewen's books, are some of the best that I ever read. Lies my Teacher Told Me </p></div><p>Excellent book. I learned two things from it.</p><p>1. If you really want to know about history, you should examine the primary sources of information yourself because:</p><p>2. All facts are interpreted by somebody to become what we call "history" and frequently, they distort the facts to achieve some goal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>James Loewen 's books , are some of the best that I ever read .
Lies my Teacher Told Me Excellent book .
I learned two things from it.1 .
If you really want to know about history , you should examine the primary sources of information yourself because : 2 .
All facts are interpreted by somebody to become what we call " history " and frequently , they distort the facts to achieve some goal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>James Loewen's books, are some of the best that I ever read.
Lies my Teacher Told Me Excellent book.
I learned two things from it.1.
If you really want to know about history, you should examine the primary sources of information yourself because:2.
All facts are interpreted by somebody to become what we call "history" and frequently, they distort the facts to achieve some goal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119098</id>
	<title>From a native Texan</title>
	<author>austin987</author>
	<datestamp>1265969280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry guys, most of us hate this shit too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry guys , most of us hate this shit too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry guys, most of us hate this shit too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120246</id>
	<title>Re:"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1265972580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Rights" in the Constitution are of the People, not the government. The term "militia" was not ambiguous when the Constitution, nor was the distinction between the "People" and government.</p><p>"Many feel that the original intent of this amendment was to maintain a national defense by way of individual gun ownership, and that the right to bear arms implies the right to take your personal gun and join the militia when the nation is threatened."</p><p>Keyword above is "feel". They can "feel" their warm, soft shit and make sculptures thereof if they like, but the Second Amendment was not written with reference to what the wilfully ignorant "feel" and/or their corrupted definition of the term "militia". It is explicit because the long-haired revolutionaries who wrote it had direct experience that the only free man is one who can defend himself.</p><p><a href="http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=108" title="nraila.org">http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=108</a> [nraila.org]</p><p>"As Patrick Henry put it, the "great object is that every man be armed . . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." James Madison, who noted in the Federalist Papers that Americans had "the advantage of being armed," which was lacking in other countries, where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms," authored the Second Amendment. It was based on the Virginia bill of rights--and similar protections against state interference with that fundamental right.....Madison wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people." and Albert Gallatin, later to serve as Jefferson`s Treasury Secretary, said "lt establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Rights " in the Constitution are of the People , not the government .
The term " militia " was not ambiguous when the Constitution , nor was the distinction between the " People " and government .
" Many feel that the original intent of this amendment was to maintain a national defense by way of individual gun ownership , and that the right to bear arms implies the right to take your personal gun and join the militia when the nation is threatened .
" Keyword above is " feel " .
They can " feel " their warm , soft shit and make sculptures thereof if they like , but the Second Amendment was not written with reference to what the wilfully ignorant " feel " and/or their corrupted definition of the term " militia " .
It is explicit because the long-haired revolutionaries who wrote it had direct experience that the only free man is one who can defend himself.http : //www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx ? ID = 108 [ nraila.org ] " As Patrick Henry put it , the " great object is that every man be armed .
. .
. Everyone who is able may have a gun .
" James Madison , who noted in the Federalist Papers that Americans had " the advantage of being armed , " which was lacking in other countries , where " the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms , " authored the Second Amendment .
It was based on the Virginia bill of rights--and similar protections against state interference with that fundamental right.....Madison wrote that the Bill of Rights was " calculated to secure the personal rights of the people .
" and Albert Gallatin , later to serve as Jefferson ` s Treasury Secretary , said " lt establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently , no majority has a right to deprive them of .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Rights" in the Constitution are of the People, not the government.
The term "militia" was not ambiguous when the Constitution, nor was the distinction between the "People" and government.
"Many feel that the original intent of this amendment was to maintain a national defense by way of individual gun ownership, and that the right to bear arms implies the right to take your personal gun and join the militia when the nation is threatened.
"Keyword above is "feel".
They can "feel" their warm, soft shit and make sculptures thereof if they like, but the Second Amendment was not written with reference to what the wilfully ignorant "feel" and/or their corrupted definition of the term "militia".
It is explicit because the long-haired revolutionaries who wrote it had direct experience that the only free man is one who can defend himself.http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=108 [nraila.org]"As Patrick Henry put it, the "great object is that every man be armed .
. .
. Everyone who is able may have a gun.
" James Madison, who noted in the Federalist Papers that Americans had "the advantage of being armed," which was lacking in other countries, where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms," authored the Second Amendment.
It was based on the Virginia bill of rights--and similar protections against state interference with that fundamental right.....Madison wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people.
" and Albert Gallatin, later to serve as Jefferson`s Treasury Secretary, said "lt establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117538</id>
	<title>The irony is this...</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1265965320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that, some would argue that the present "living document" and history as given in textbooks from the 1970s and later was done by a concerted left wing effort to make the country swing left.</p><p>Instead, it backfired miserably.</p><p>My 1970s textbooks in grade school and high school went out of their way to define progress as a big march to the nanny state.. and as I remember flipping through pictures of poor  people doing nothing, along came Ronald Reagan, to say that, well, it was all a bunch of crap.</p><p>Propaganda for kids doesn't work, because, the truthful documents are there.  The truth is this: The wingers have this much of a point: The constitution is a strict document that defines powers given to the government, not, giving people rights, and the framers did base their ideas on Locke, that, because we've all got souls, we've all got rights.  But what wingers also neglect to mention is that the framers were decidedly against much of their agenda too.</p><p>The founding fathers, in particular, want a standing army or a standing military at all. Indeed, up until the 1900s, the USA was barely a 2nd rate military power and looked on European military spending as a colossal sort of stupidity.</p><p>The founding fathers envisioned no federal power to regulate drugs or marriage or anything else.  They would tax whiskey, and that was about it, and that was only to pay down the debt from the revolutionary war.</p><p>Bottom line is this, if you believe in the Constitution as it is written, there may not be any federal right to entitlements making, but there's no right to having a big army or any of the stuff the right wing wants, either.</p><p>The founding fathers were libertarians.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that , some would argue that the present " living document " and history as given in textbooks from the 1970s and later was done by a concerted left wing effort to make the country swing left.Instead , it backfired miserably.My 1970s textbooks in grade school and high school went out of their way to define progress as a big march to the nanny state.. and as I remember flipping through pictures of poor people doing nothing , along came Ronald Reagan , to say that , well , it was all a bunch of crap.Propaganda for kids does n't work , because , the truthful documents are there .
The truth is this : The wingers have this much of a point : The constitution is a strict document that defines powers given to the government , not , giving people rights , and the framers did base their ideas on Locke , that , because we 've all got souls , we 've all got rights .
But what wingers also neglect to mention is that the framers were decidedly against much of their agenda too.The founding fathers , in particular , want a standing army or a standing military at all .
Indeed , up until the 1900s , the USA was barely a 2nd rate military power and looked on European military spending as a colossal sort of stupidity.The founding fathers envisioned no federal power to regulate drugs or marriage or anything else .
They would tax whiskey , and that was about it , and that was only to pay down the debt from the revolutionary war.Bottom line is this , if you believe in the Constitution as it is written , there may not be any federal right to entitlements making , but there 's no right to having a big army or any of the stuff the right wing wants , either.The founding fathers were libertarians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that, some would argue that the present "living document" and history as given in textbooks from the 1970s and later was done by a concerted left wing effort to make the country swing left.Instead, it backfired miserably.My 1970s textbooks in grade school and high school went out of their way to define progress as a big march to the nanny state.. and as I remember flipping through pictures of poor  people doing nothing, along came Ronald Reagan, to say that, well, it was all a bunch of crap.Propaganda for kids doesn't work, because, the truthful documents are there.
The truth is this: The wingers have this much of a point: The constitution is a strict document that defines powers given to the government, not, giving people rights, and the framers did base their ideas on Locke, that, because we've all got souls, we've all got rights.
But what wingers also neglect to mention is that the framers were decidedly against much of their agenda too.The founding fathers, in particular, want a standing army or a standing military at all.
Indeed, up until the 1900s, the USA was barely a 2nd rate military power and looked on European military spending as a colossal sort of stupidity.The founding fathers envisioned no federal power to regulate drugs or marriage or anything else.
They would tax whiskey, and that was about it, and that was only to pay down the debt from the revolutionary war.Bottom line is this, if you believe in the Constitution as it is written, there may not be any federal right to entitlements making, but there's no right to having a big army or any of the stuff the right wing wants, either.The founding fathers were libertarians.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117868</id>
	<title>As good ol' George said...</title>
	<author>forghy</author>
	<datestamp>1265966280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past"
<br>
Like writing on schoolbooks that Germans were descendants of some mythic ancient super race, or that Kim Il Sung could actually can fly or talk to animal or that all inventions have been made by  , or, or, or...
Mystifying history is never for a good cause.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Who controls the past controls the future ; who controls the present controls the past " Like writing on schoolbooks that Germans were descendants of some mythic ancient super race , or that Kim Il Sung could actually can fly or talk to animal or that all inventions have been made by , or , or , or.. . Mystifying history is never for a good cause .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past"

Like writing on schoolbooks that Germans were descendants of some mythic ancient super race, or that Kim Il Sung could actually can fly or talk to animal or that all inventions have been made by  , or, or, or...
Mystifying history is never for a good cause.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119330</id>
	<title>Re:Does curriculum matter anymore in the Google Ag</title>
	<author>pongo000</author>
	<datestamp>1265969940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I figure that there should be mandatory classes, at the mid to upper high school level,<br>in basic epistemology and metaphysics (i.e. meta-level topics such as)...</i></p><p>Visit your local <a href="http://www.ibo.org/" title="ibo.org">IB (International Baccalaureate)</a> [ibo.org] high school, and you'll find that IB students are required to take two semesters of "Theory of Knowledge" that covers the topics you mention.  Unfortunately, asking to make such courses mandatory is akin to expecting regular high school students to be able to construct a logical geometry proof or to perform a critical analysis of a literary work (both of which appear to be lost art forms in most high schools).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I figure that there should be mandatory classes , at the mid to upper high school level,in basic epistemology and metaphysics ( i.e .
meta-level topics such as ) ...Visit your local IB ( International Baccalaureate ) [ ibo.org ] high school , and you 'll find that IB students are required to take two semesters of " Theory of Knowledge " that covers the topics you mention .
Unfortunately , asking to make such courses mandatory is akin to expecting regular high school students to be able to construct a logical geometry proof or to perform a critical analysis of a literary work ( both of which appear to be lost art forms in most high schools ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I figure that there should be mandatory classes, at the mid to upper high school level,in basic epistemology and metaphysics (i.e.
meta-level topics such as)...Visit your local IB (International Baccalaureate) [ibo.org] high school, and you'll find that IB students are required to take two semesters of "Theory of Knowledge" that covers the topics you mention.
Unfortunately, asking to make such courses mandatory is akin to expecting regular high school students to be able to construct a logical geometry proof or to perform a critical analysis of a literary work (both of which appear to be lost art forms in most high schools).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117750</id>
	<title>Does curriculum matter anymore in the Google Age?</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1265965920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I figure that there should be mandatory classes, at the mid to upper high school level,<br>in basic epistemology and metaphysics (i.e. meta-level topics such as):</p><p>-How to think carefully, logically.</p><p>-How to search.</p><p>-How to formulate good questions.</p><p>-How to recognize bias; people who are "speaking for effect"; trying to<br>influence you, and some of the common motivations why people do<br>that.</p><p>How to form beliefs using epistemic responsibility.</p><p>Then set them free to explore the information from a billion sources<br>that we have available to us at a mouse click today.</p><p>The scariest kind of graduate is one who has been taught only to<br>parrot, and to conform to orthodoxy, and who does not know how to question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I figure that there should be mandatory classes , at the mid to upper high school level,in basic epistemology and metaphysics ( i.e .
meta-level topics such as ) : -How to think carefully , logically.-How to search.-How to formulate good questions.-How to recognize bias ; people who are " speaking for effect " ; trying toinfluence you , and some of the common motivations why people dothat.How to form beliefs using epistemic responsibility.Then set them free to explore the information from a billion sourcesthat we have available to us at a mouse click today.The scariest kind of graduate is one who has been taught only toparrot , and to conform to orthodoxy , and who does not know how to question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I figure that there should be mandatory classes, at the mid to upper high school level,in basic epistemology and metaphysics (i.e.
meta-level topics such as):-How to think carefully, logically.-How to search.-How to formulate good questions.-How to recognize bias; people who are "speaking for effect"; trying toinfluence you, and some of the common motivations why people dothat.How to form beliefs using epistemic responsibility.Then set them free to explore the information from a billion sourcesthat we have available to us at a mouse click today.The scariest kind of graduate is one who has been taught only toparrot, and to conform to orthodoxy, and who does not know how to question.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122342</id>
	<title>Re:The irony is this...</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1265980860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The founding fathers were libertarians."</p><p>No they weren't, thanks for playing! Please take the home version of 'Clue Stick' as out gift.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The founding fathers were libertarians .
" No they were n't , thanks for playing !
Please take the home version of 'Clue Stick ' as out gift .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The founding fathers were libertarians.
"No they weren't, thanks for playing!
Please take the home version of 'Clue Stick' as out gift.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117614</id>
	<title>Re:People weren't aware of this?</title>
	<author>coaxial</author>
	<datestamp>1265965500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I knew this and am not even American. Every piece of coverage I've seen on this issue has explained how wide reaching the ramifications are. How can anyone have missed it?</p></div><p>Because they're American.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I knew this and am not even American .
Every piece of coverage I 've seen on this issue has explained how wide reaching the ramifications are .
How can anyone have missed it ? Because they 're American .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I knew this and am not even American.
Every piece of coverage I've seen on this issue has explained how wide reaching the ramifications are.
How can anyone have missed it?Because they're American.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118948</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265968920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...<br>Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man &amp; his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, &amp; not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," <b>thus building a wall of separation between Church &amp; State</b>.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Th Jefferson</p><p>Jan. 1. 1802.</p></div><p>All men and women are created equal.  Everyone has a right to practice what religion they so choose.  So keep your religious crap out of our public schools.</p></div><p>According to your quote it sounds like there can be no constitutional law mandating, or prohibiting, the instruction of religion in government schools.<br>In the dark ages the government-church prohibited, and mandated, religion through law.  I think that it may be beneficial for mankind if governments are indifferent towards religion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man &amp; his God , that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship , that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only , &amp; not opinions , I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should " make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof , " thus building a wall of separation between Church &amp; State .
...Th JeffersonJan .
1. 1802.All men and women are created equal .
Everyone has a right to practice what religion they so choose .
So keep your religious crap out of our public schools.According to your quote it sounds like there can be no constitutional law mandating , or prohibiting , the instruction of religion in government schools.In the dark ages the government-church prohibited , and mandated , religion through law .
I think that it may be beneficial for mankind if governments are indifferent towards religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man &amp; his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, &amp; not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church &amp; State.
...Th JeffersonJan.
1. 1802.All men and women are created equal.
Everyone has a right to practice what religion they so choose.
So keep your religious crap out of our public schools.According to your quote it sounds like there can be no constitutional law mandating, or prohibiting, the instruction of religion in government schools.In the dark ages the government-church prohibited, and mandated, religion through law.
I think that it may be beneficial for mankind if governments are indifferent towards religion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117600</id>
	<title>They Already Lost</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265965500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Internet is here, and it isn't going away.  The materials in textbooks had better match reality.  Kids will start with the textbook and then move to the internet and library for their reports.  If the two don't match it will only cause the kids to do more research.  Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if teachers start giving assignments for kids to fact-check the textbook!</p><p>Either the textbook companies are this stupid (to threaten their own business), or they are merely complicit with the religious zealots.  Either way, they've already lost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Internet is here , and it is n't going away .
The materials in textbooks had better match reality .
Kids will start with the textbook and then move to the internet and library for their reports .
If the two do n't match it will only cause the kids to do more research .
Hell , I would n't be surprised if teachers start giving assignments for kids to fact-check the textbook ! Either the textbook companies are this stupid ( to threaten their own business ) , or they are merely complicit with the religious zealots .
Either way , they 've already lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Internet is here, and it isn't going away.
The materials in textbooks had better match reality.
Kids will start with the textbook and then move to the internet and library for their reports.
If the two don't match it will only cause the kids to do more research.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if teachers start giving assignments for kids to fact-check the textbook!Either the textbook companies are this stupid (to threaten their own business), or they are merely complicit with the religious zealots.
Either way, they've already lost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120334</id>
	<title>George Carlin said it best:</title>
	<author>Alcohol Fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1265972820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117354</id>
	<title>Re:"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266007980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow! Your family has been paying off a mortgage for 220 years? Can you still pay in slaves?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow !
Your family has been paying off a mortgage for 220 years ?
Can you still pay in slaves ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow!
Your family has been paying off a mortgage for 220 years?
Can you still pay in slaves?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121306</id>
	<title>Re:People weren't aware of this?</title>
	<author>Trailer Trash</author>
	<datestamp>1265976120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I knew this and am not even American. Every piece of coverage I've seen on this issue has explained how wide reaching the ramifications are. How can anyone have missed it?</p></div></blockquote><p>It's kdawson.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I knew this and am not even American .
Every piece of coverage I 've seen on this issue has explained how wide reaching the ramifications are .
How can anyone have missed it ? It 's kdawson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I knew this and am not even American.
Every piece of coverage I've seen on this issue has explained how wide reaching the ramifications are.
How can anyone have missed it?It's kdawson.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31158414</id>
	<title>I'm just saying...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266349920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If there were no God, there would be no atheist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there were no God , there would be no atheist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there were no God, there would be no atheist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118082</id>
	<title>Re:The irony is this...</title>
	<author>anorlunda</author>
	<datestamp>1265966880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're ignoring the amendment process.   We should respect the original intentions of those who wrote and passed the constitution and the amendments.</p><p>The constitution has a process that can make it a living document -- add new amendments.</p><p>IMO it is wrong to reinterpret it and to expand the power of the government on the pretext authority of the commerce clause or the general welfare clause without going through the trouble of making amendments.</p><p>If enough people agree to make an amendment, we can make the constitution say anything at all.  If not enough agree, stick to what "we" originally agreed to.   It is also wise, IMO, to require a supermajority agree to amendments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're ignoring the amendment process .
We should respect the original intentions of those who wrote and passed the constitution and the amendments.The constitution has a process that can make it a living document -- add new amendments.IMO it is wrong to reinterpret it and to expand the power of the government on the pretext authority of the commerce clause or the general welfare clause without going through the trouble of making amendments.If enough people agree to make an amendment , we can make the constitution say anything at all .
If not enough agree , stick to what " we " originally agreed to .
It is also wise , IMO , to require a supermajority agree to amendments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're ignoring the amendment process.
We should respect the original intentions of those who wrote and passed the constitution and the amendments.The constitution has a process that can make it a living document -- add new amendments.IMO it is wrong to reinterpret it and to expand the power of the government on the pretext authority of the commerce clause or the general welfare clause without going through the trouble of making amendments.If enough people agree to make an amendment, we can make the constitution say anything at all.
If not enough agree, stick to what "we" originally agreed to.
It is also wise, IMO, to require a supermajority agree to amendments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119308</id>
	<title>Re:children at risk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265969880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here is my favorite thing Texas has done in the name of promoting christianity.  Adding "under god" to the Texas pledge that all Texas public school children are forced to say every day.  Now, I have not problem with a pledge.  It is a fetish thing when people want to show allegiance without have to do anything uncomfortable to demonstrate allegiance.  I do have an issue with adding the notion of god, because that make it more a religious prayer than a country thing.</p></div><p>I'm not saying you are wrong, but it is a little disingenuous to pick on Texas here since the US pledge of allegiance has included "under god" since the 50's.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is my favorite thing Texas has done in the name of promoting christianity .
Adding " under god " to the Texas pledge that all Texas public school children are forced to say every day .
Now , I have not problem with a pledge .
It is a fetish thing when people want to show allegiance without have to do anything uncomfortable to demonstrate allegiance .
I do have an issue with adding the notion of god , because that make it more a religious prayer than a country thing.I 'm not saying you are wrong , but it is a little disingenuous to pick on Texas here since the US pledge of allegiance has included " under god " since the 50 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is my favorite thing Texas has done in the name of promoting christianity.
Adding "under god" to the Texas pledge that all Texas public school children are forced to say every day.
Now, I have not problem with a pledge.
It is a fetish thing when people want to show allegiance without have to do anything uncomfortable to demonstrate allegiance.
I do have an issue with adding the notion of god, because that make it more a religious prayer than a country thing.I'm not saying you are wrong, but it is a little disingenuous to pick on Texas here since the US pledge of allegiance has included "under god" since the 50's.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31124668</id>
	<title>Re:People weren't aware of this?</title>
	<author>ps2os2</author>
	<datestamp>1265999820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the Supreme Court says corporations are alive and have rights to give money to politicians.<br>-----------<br>The Constitution is not "alive" in the sense most people use it, where the words have no meaning and the Congress ignores what it says, such that the Constitution might as well not even exist. That's why they (and I) find the reference objectionable. In reality the Constitution is a piece-of-paper with some Laws scribbled upon it, and it remains fixed for a long long time (two decades so far), until an amendment is added to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the Supreme Court says corporations are alive and have rights to give money to politicians.-----------The Constitution is not " alive " in the sense most people use it , where the words have no meaning and the Congress ignores what it says , such that the Constitution might as well not even exist .
That 's why they ( and I ) find the reference objectionable .
In reality the Constitution is a piece-of-paper with some Laws scribbled upon it , and it remains fixed for a long long time ( two decades so far ) , until an amendment is added to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the Supreme Court says corporations are alive and have rights to give money to politicians.-----------The Constitution is not "alive" in the sense most people use it, where the words have no meaning and the Congress ignores what it says, such that the Constitution might as well not even exist.
That's why they (and I) find the reference objectionable.
In reality the Constitution is a piece-of-paper with some Laws scribbled upon it, and it remains fixed for a long long time (two decades so far), until an amendment is added to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117770</id>
	<title>Line up Behind Another State</title>
	<author>RobinEggs</author>
	<datestamp>1265965980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Alright, so Texas currently dominates the textbook market in two ways: <br> <br>
1. They're a really big market<br>
2. They have clear guidelines which make them easy to market <i>to</i> (market being a verb now) and thus books get written for Texas which many other states ultimately buy.<br> <br>
So stop bashing religion, Texas, etc. and find another textbook-writing standard behind which your state can rally. Get involved and badger your own school board or state standards boards to buy something better, while providing them a specific "something better" to look at. As usual Slashdotters are just using the idiocy of a couple dozen Texan fundamentalists to mock religion as a whole rather than addressing specific problems with reasonable solutions.

<br> <br>Quit bitching and do something!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alright , so Texas currently dominates the textbook market in two ways : 1 .
They 're a really big market 2 .
They have clear guidelines which make them easy to market to ( market being a verb now ) and thus books get written for Texas which many other states ultimately buy .
So stop bashing religion , Texas , etc .
and find another textbook-writing standard behind which your state can rally .
Get involved and badger your own school board or state standards boards to buy something better , while providing them a specific " something better " to look at .
As usual Slashdotters are just using the idiocy of a couple dozen Texan fundamentalists to mock religion as a whole rather than addressing specific problems with reasonable solutions .
Quit bitching and do something !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alright, so Texas currently dominates the textbook market in two ways:  
1.
They're a really big market
2.
They have clear guidelines which make them easy to market to (market being a verb now) and thus books get written for Texas which many other states ultimately buy.
So stop bashing religion, Texas, etc.
and find another textbook-writing standard behind which your state can rally.
Get involved and badger your own school board or state standards boards to buy something better, while providing them a specific "something better" to look at.
As usual Slashdotters are just using the idiocy of a couple dozen Texan fundamentalists to mock religion as a whole rather than addressing specific problems with reasonable solutions.
Quit bitching and do something!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121134</id>
	<title>living document</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265975400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, arguing that the constitution has been considered a "living document" since the fifties (a time marked by WWII recovery and mcarthyism btw) doesn't exactly help the argument.  It was written in 1787 so that's at least 163 years where it was considered unchanged ink on a piece of parchment, vs 60 where it was considered something a few people could rewrite at will from the bench.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , arguing that the constitution has been considered a " living document " since the fifties ( a time marked by WWII recovery and mcarthyism btw ) does n't exactly help the argument .
It was written in 1787 so that 's at least 163 years where it was considered unchanged ink on a piece of parchment , vs 60 where it was considered something a few people could rewrite at will from the bench .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, arguing that the constitution has been considered a "living document" since the fifties (a time marked by WWII recovery and mcarthyism btw) doesn't exactly help the argument.
It was written in 1787 so that's at least 163 years where it was considered unchanged ink on a piece of parchment, vs 60 where it was considered something a few people could rewrite at will from the bench.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119228</id>
	<title>Get over it</title>
	<author>hargrand</author>
	<datestamp>1265969640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>@ideonexus:</p><p>For years I've lamented the fact that most of the textbooks in this country have been authored by a bunch left wing revisionist 1960's hippie throw-backs, and so find your complaints actually somewhat refreshing.  Still, my wife an I have never let any of our children spend one day in public school and have opted instead to teach them ourselves.  If you're so upset by this type of "Change" then maybe you should stop complaining and take responsibility for providing your children with the education that you consider to be best for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>@ ideonexus : For years I 've lamented the fact that most of the textbooks in this country have been authored by a bunch left wing revisionist 1960 's hippie throw-backs , and so find your complaints actually somewhat refreshing .
Still , my wife an I have never let any of our children spend one day in public school and have opted instead to teach them ourselves .
If you 're so upset by this type of " Change " then maybe you should stop complaining and take responsibility for providing your children with the education that you consider to be best for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>@ideonexus:For years I've lamented the fact that most of the textbooks in this country have been authored by a bunch left wing revisionist 1960's hippie throw-backs, and so find your complaints actually somewhat refreshing.
Still, my wife an I have never let any of our children spend one day in public school and have opted instead to teach them ourselves.
If you're so upset by this type of "Change" then maybe you should stop complaining and take responsibility for providing your children with the education that you consider to be best for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118662</id>
	<title>Re:People weren't aware of this?</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1265968260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>How can anyone have missed it?</i> Sorry... I was too busy watching "Jersey Shore"!</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can anyone have missed it ?
Sorry... I was too busy watching " Jersey Shore " !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can anyone have missed it?
Sorry... I was too busy watching "Jersey Shore"!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118198</id>
	<title>Re:Lies my Teacher Told Me...</title>
	<author>Andraax</author>
	<datestamp>1265967120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have found that asking them how antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria have come about so quickly usually shuts them up.</p></div><p>I must deal with more up to date creationists than you. They believe in natural selection, but evolution requires speciation events, which they don't believe in. Good thing that several of those have been documented (one was just published last week or so...).</p><p>Lies was a great book, BTW.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have found that asking them how antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria have come about so quickly usually shuts them up.I must deal with more up to date creationists than you .
They believe in natural selection , but evolution requires speciation events , which they do n't believe in .
Good thing that several of those have been documented ( one was just published last week or so... ) .Lies was a great book , BTW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have found that asking them how antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria have come about so quickly usually shuts them up.I must deal with more up to date creationists than you.
They believe in natural selection, but evolution requires speciation events, which they don't believe in.
Good thing that several of those have been documented (one was just published last week or so...).Lies was a great book, BTW.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31129356</id>
	<title>Re:"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266051660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People in the U.S. have somehow acquired the false notion that the Constitution is actually the original dozen or so pages they see printed in their almanacs. But every U.S. congressperson and senator receives a copy of the real deal when they take office -- and the real deal is the original text of the constitution, plus the original text of all amendments, PLUS ALL THE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS that interpret those decisions in actual real-world contexts. The text of the court decisions is interleaved with the original text it elaborates, making for an eye-opening read. I tried once to print the whole thing out, consuming several reams of paper in the process, and never did get it all. But it's available online at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse2002.html#contents.</p><p>There's a reason the Constitution created a Supreme Court: law is not executable code! It can't be implemented on its own. It must fit into an actual context in the real world where real things happen. That requires the application of human intelligence -- aka JUDGEMENT. Do you want some AI machine to enforce it's literal machine interpretation of the 1770s text on your body, with the force of state guns behind it? I certainly hope not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People in the U.S. have somehow acquired the false notion that the Constitution is actually the original dozen or so pages they see printed in their almanacs .
But every U.S. congressperson and senator receives a copy of the real deal when they take office -- and the real deal is the original text of the constitution , plus the original text of all amendments , PLUS ALL THE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS that interpret those decisions in actual real-world contexts .
The text of the court decisions is interleaved with the original text it elaborates , making for an eye-opening read .
I tried once to print the whole thing out , consuming several reams of paper in the process , and never did get it all .
But it 's available online at http : //www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse2002.html # contents.There 's a reason the Constitution created a Supreme Court : law is not executable code !
It ca n't be implemented on its own .
It must fit into an actual context in the real world where real things happen .
That requires the application of human intelligence -- aka JUDGEMENT .
Do you want some AI machine to enforce it 's literal machine interpretation of the 1770s text on your body , with the force of state guns behind it ?
I certainly hope not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People in the U.S. have somehow acquired the false notion that the Constitution is actually the original dozen or so pages they see printed in their almanacs.
But every U.S. congressperson and senator receives a copy of the real deal when they take office -- and the real deal is the original text of the constitution, plus the original text of all amendments, PLUS ALL THE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS that interpret those decisions in actual real-world contexts.
The text of the court decisions is interleaved with the original text it elaborates, making for an eye-opening read.
I tried once to print the whole thing out, consuming several reams of paper in the process, and never did get it all.
But it's available online at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse2002.html#contents.There's a reason the Constitution created a Supreme Court: law is not executable code!
It can't be implemented on its own.
It must fit into an actual context in the real world where real things happen.
That requires the application of human intelligence -- aka JUDGEMENT.
Do you want some AI machine to enforce it's literal machine interpretation of the 1770s text on your body, with the force of state guns behind it?
I certainly hope not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118596</id>
	<title>Opt out</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1265968140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you don't like what being taught in the public schools, you can always send your kid to a private school... which around here is either a Catholic school or one run by Evangelical Christians... D'oh!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't like what being taught in the public schools , you can always send your kid to a private school... which around here is either a Catholic school or one run by Evangelical Christians... D'oh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't like what being taught in the public schools, you can always send your kid to a private school... which around here is either a Catholic school or one run by Evangelical Christians... D'oh!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118092</id>
	<title>Re:"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1265966880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The constitution is not the only legal document subject to modification. In fact many legal judgments and court orders are subject to modification.<br>The key is that the terms of how and to what degree things can be modified are either part of the document itself, or established by statute.<br>As with all things, there's often room for subjective interpretation of the terms of modification, and that's where case law and precedent come in.<br>What distinguishes a constitution is that it is intentionally difficult to modify.</p></div><p>That's not at all what is meant by a "living document".<br>"Living" refers to our interpretation of the Constitution, not necessarily the actual text.</p><p>Once upon a time, equality didn't apply to women or non-land owning white males or especially blacks . Another example: From the 60s till 2002 about 36 states had their Sodomy laws overturned either legislatively or through the courts, but it took the Supreme Court in <i>Lawrence v. Texas</i> (2003) to enlighten the rest of 'em that it's unconstitutional to tell people they can't suck dicks or have anal sex in the privacy of their own homes.</p><p>There are numerous other laws which were once considered Constitutional and have since been overturned as society has progressed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The constitution is not the only legal document subject to modification .
In fact many legal judgments and court orders are subject to modification.The key is that the terms of how and to what degree things can be modified are either part of the document itself , or established by statute.As with all things , there 's often room for subjective interpretation of the terms of modification , and that 's where case law and precedent come in.What distinguishes a constitution is that it is intentionally difficult to modify.That 's not at all what is meant by a " living document " .
" Living " refers to our interpretation of the Constitution , not necessarily the actual text.Once upon a time , equality did n't apply to women or non-land owning white males or especially blacks .
Another example : From the 60s till 2002 about 36 states had their Sodomy laws overturned either legislatively or through the courts , but it took the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas ( 2003 ) to enlighten the rest of 'em that it 's unconstitutional to tell people they ca n't suck dicks or have anal sex in the privacy of their own homes.There are numerous other laws which were once considered Constitutional and have since been overturned as society has progressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The constitution is not the only legal document subject to modification.
In fact many legal judgments and court orders are subject to modification.The key is that the terms of how and to what degree things can be modified are either part of the document itself, or established by statute.As with all things, there's often room for subjective interpretation of the terms of modification, and that's where case law and precedent come in.What distinguishes a constitution is that it is intentionally difficult to modify.That's not at all what is meant by a "living document".
"Living" refers to our interpretation of the Constitution, not necessarily the actual text.Once upon a time, equality didn't apply to women or non-land owning white males or especially blacks .
Another example: From the 60s till 2002 about 36 states had their Sodomy laws overturned either legislatively or through the courts, but it took the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) to enlighten the rest of 'em that it's unconstitutional to tell people they can't suck dicks or have anal sex in the privacy of their own homes.There are numerous other laws which were once considered Constitutional and have since been overturned as society has progressed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118442</id>
	<title>Re:Lies my Teacher Told Me...</title>
	<author>hrimhari</author>
	<datestamp>1265967660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have found that asking them how antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria have come about so quickly usually shuts them up.</p></div><p>Your naysayers are less creative than mine. Here they say "elementary! God made them".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have found that asking them how antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria have come about so quickly usually shuts them up.Your naysayers are less creative than mine .
Here they say " elementary !
God made them " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have found that asking them how antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria have come about so quickly usually shuts them up.Your naysayers are less creative than mine.
Here they say "elementary!
God made them".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117794</id>
	<title>Re:How bad could it be?</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1265966040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet, those folks were smart enough not to make him their governor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet , those folks were smart enough not to make him their governor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet, those folks were smart enough not to make him their governor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119678</id>
	<title>Re:How bad could it be?</title>
	<author>Dr\_Barnowl</author>
	<datestamp>1265970840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a lot of chimps that spend their entire lives at the most prestigious universities in the world, but you wouldn't call them well-educated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a lot of chimps that spend their entire lives at the most prestigious universities in the world , but you would n't call them well-educated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a lot of chimps that spend their entire lives at the most prestigious universities in the world, but you wouldn't call them well-educated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117964</id>
	<title>Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>ldconfig</author>
	<datestamp>1265966580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let me get this straight. People that believe a all powerful invisible man got a young woman pregnant then left her with no support so the kid is born in a barn. The kid grows up wearing a dress and hangs out with 12 other guys all wearing a dress. Then the kid and his posse run around making the government mad. And when the government gives the kid the death penalty mister all powerful is no where to be found<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... again lol. Plus three days after his execution the kid turns zombie gets out of the grave says hello to his friends then floats away.
In any other context that would put you in a rubber room yet there are those that want to force this on our kids. Schools should teach our kids science and facts not become basic training for the tea klux klan.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me get this straight .
People that believe a all powerful invisible man got a young woman pregnant then left her with no support so the kid is born in a barn .
The kid grows up wearing a dress and hangs out with 12 other guys all wearing a dress .
Then the kid and his posse run around making the government mad .
And when the government gives the kid the death penalty mister all powerful is no where to be found ... again lol .
Plus three days after his execution the kid turns zombie gets out of the grave says hello to his friends then floats away .
In any other context that would put you in a rubber room yet there are those that want to force this on our kids .
Schools should teach our kids science and facts not become basic training for the tea klux klan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me get this straight.
People that believe a all powerful invisible man got a young woman pregnant then left her with no support so the kid is born in a barn.
The kid grows up wearing a dress and hangs out with 12 other guys all wearing a dress.
Then the kid and his posse run around making the government mad.
And when the government gives the kid the death penalty mister all powerful is no where to be found ... again lol.
Plus three days after his execution the kid turns zombie gets out of the grave says hello to his friends then floats away.
In any other context that would put you in a rubber room yet there are those that want to force this on our kids.
Schools should teach our kids science and facts not become basic training for the tea klux klan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117192</id>
	<title>Down with Texas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266007380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's time to mess with Texas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's time to mess with Texas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's time to mess with Texas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120970</id>
	<title>who's got an agenda now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265974920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kinda sounds the other side complaining about 'global warming' being taught in schools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kinda sounds the other side complaining about 'global warming ' being taught in schools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kinda sounds the other side complaining about 'global warming' being taught in schools.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117658</id>
	<title>Re:How bad could it be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265965620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could you come up with a better source for the GPA than a blog?  The blog doesn't even have a source for it's information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you come up with a better source for the GPA than a blog ?
The blog does n't even have a source for it 's information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you come up with a better source for the GPA than a blog?
The blog doesn't even have a source for it's information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121664</id>
	<title>Beliefs vs. Facts</title>
	<author>okmijnuhb</author>
	<datestamp>1265977920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Faith in beliefs gives you religion.<br>
Knowledge of facts gives you science.<br>
One is made-up. <br>
The other is truth.<br>
The search for truth and facts, or made-up answers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Faith in beliefs gives you religion .
Knowledge of facts gives you science .
One is made-up .
The other is truth .
The search for truth and facts , or made-up answers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Faith in beliefs gives you religion.
Knowledge of facts gives you science.
One is made-up.
The other is truth.
The search for truth and facts, or made-up answers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121880</id>
	<title>Re:"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265978880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Open to interpretation has been "Arms" (does the Constitution guarantee a fundamental right for all US citizens to wield personal nuclear weapons? Where is the limit?)</p></div></blockquote><p>"Arms" is really open to interpretation?  Does that mean that half of the people, when they hear the title, "Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty," say "huh? That's an oxymoron."?  Does that mean that if I'm caught red-handed selling nukes to North Korea, admit it, and then and some fed standing at a podium eschews techie talk like "nuclear weapon," and instead claims that I was trafficking in "arms," people would say he's lying?  Do you really think more than 1 person in 1000 would say, "Those aren't arms, those were nuclear weapons. Stupid feds need to talk English good like me"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Open to interpretation has been " Arms " ( does the Constitution guarantee a fundamental right for all US citizens to wield personal nuclear weapons ?
Where is the limit ?
) " Arms " is really open to interpretation ?
Does that mean that half of the people , when they hear the title , " Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty , " say " huh ?
That 's an oxymoron. " ?
Does that mean that if I 'm caught red-handed selling nukes to North Korea , admit it , and then and some fed standing at a podium eschews techie talk like " nuclear weapon , " and instead claims that I was trafficking in " arms , " people would say he 's lying ?
Do you really think more than 1 person in 1000 would say , " Those are n't arms , those were nuclear weapons .
Stupid feds need to talk English good like me " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open to interpretation has been "Arms" (does the Constitution guarantee a fundamental right for all US citizens to wield personal nuclear weapons?
Where is the limit?
)"Arms" is really open to interpretation?
Does that mean that half of the people, when they hear the title, "Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty," say "huh?
That's an oxymoron."?
Does that mean that if I'm caught red-handed selling nukes to North Korea, admit it, and then and some fed standing at a podium eschews techie talk like "nuclear weapon," and instead claims that I was trafficking in "arms," people would say he's lying?
Do you really think more than 1 person in 1000 would say, "Those aren't arms, those were nuclear weapons.
Stupid feds need to talk English good like me"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122896</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Dirtside</author>
	<datestamp>1265983680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but what I didn't realize is that Texas schoolbooks set the standard for the rest of the country.</p></div><p>Wow... I sure hope their schoolbook <i>depositories</i> don't set a standard for the rest of the country.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but what I did n't realize is that Texas schoolbooks set the standard for the rest of the country.Wow... I sure hope their schoolbook depositories do n't set a standard for the rest of the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but what I didn't realize is that Texas schoolbooks set the standard for the rest of the country.Wow... I sure hope their schoolbook depositories don't set a standard for the rest of the country.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118124</id>
	<title>The solution is in representation</title>
	<author>SuperBanana</author>
	<datestamp>1265966940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As the NY Times discusses- the Christian nutjobs pushed themselves onto school boards over the last 20 years, and that's how we got into this mess.  It's time for the rationalists, atheists, and humanists to do the same.

<p>Hold more than a bachelor's degree, or a degree in education?  Run for your local school board.  Especially if you live in Texas.  <b>You're running against dentists and hair stylists</b>.  Just remember to not appear to be some anti-god nutjob.

</p><p>Meanwhile, everyone lobby their state representatives and education boards to refuse to use any textbooks Texas does.  Sue, if necessary.   Make Texasisms so toxic that textbook companies will have no choice but to produce books for texas, and books for the rest of us.  If they want to turn themselves into a hellhole of ignorance, so be it, but they can do it alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As the NY Times discusses- the Christian nutjobs pushed themselves onto school boards over the last 20 years , and that 's how we got into this mess .
It 's time for the rationalists , atheists , and humanists to do the same .
Hold more than a bachelor 's degree , or a degree in education ?
Run for your local school board .
Especially if you live in Texas .
You 're running against dentists and hair stylists .
Just remember to not appear to be some anti-god nutjob .
Meanwhile , everyone lobby their state representatives and education boards to refuse to use any textbooks Texas does .
Sue , if necessary .
Make Texasisms so toxic that textbook companies will have no choice but to produce books for texas , and books for the rest of us .
If they want to turn themselves into a hellhole of ignorance , so be it , but they can do it alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the NY Times discusses- the Christian nutjobs pushed themselves onto school boards over the last 20 years, and that's how we got into this mess.
It's time for the rationalists, atheists, and humanists to do the same.
Hold more than a bachelor's degree, or a degree in education?
Run for your local school board.
Especially if you live in Texas.
You're running against dentists and hair stylists.
Just remember to not appear to be some anti-god nutjob.
Meanwhile, everyone lobby their state representatives and education boards to refuse to use any textbooks Texas does.
Sue, if necessary.
Make Texasisms so toxic that textbook companies will have no choice but to produce books for texas, and books for the rest of us.
If they want to turn themselves into a hellhole of ignorance, so be it, but they can do it alone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120228</id>
	<title>Jefferson was in France!</title>
	<author>Fished</author>
	<datestamp>1265972520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah.. and let us recall that Jefferson was the most radically non-Christian of the founding fathers and he was in France when the Constitution was being written!  Moreover, he was the kind of guy who could and would reshape things to fit his vision, well after the fact.</p><p>Jefferson had a beef with organized religion.  That doesn't prove that anyone else did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah.. and let us recall that Jefferson was the most radically non-Christian of the founding fathers and he was in France when the Constitution was being written !
Moreover , he was the kind of guy who could and would reshape things to fit his vision , well after the fact.Jefferson had a beef with organized religion .
That does n't prove that anyone else did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.. and let us recall that Jefferson was the most radically non-Christian of the founding fathers and he was in France when the Constitution was being written!
Moreover, he was the kind of guy who could and would reshape things to fit his vision, well after the fact.Jefferson had a beef with organized religion.
That doesn't prove that anyone else did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117304</id>
	<title>Taas</title>
	<author>toastar</author>
	<datestamp>1266007800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why did they rename the TAAS test again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did they rename the TAAS test again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did they rename the TAAS test again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121064</id>
	<title>Re:"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1265975220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Why can't I buy a military firearm?  The word "militia" means a military force, and the amendment seems to me to mean that I should be able, under at least some circumstances, to keep and bear military weapons.  I agree with you on the original intent, but all that has changed is the nature of military weapons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't I buy a military firearm ?
The word " militia " means a military force , and the amendment seems to me to mean that I should be able , under at least some circumstances , to keep and bear military weapons .
I agree with you on the original intent , but all that has changed is the nature of military weapons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Why can't I buy a military firearm?
The word "militia" means a military force, and the amendment seems to me to mean that I should be able, under at least some circumstances, to keep and bear military weapons.
I agree with you on the original intent, but all that has changed is the nature of military weapons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119926</id>
	<title>Re:"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>foo fighter</author>
	<datestamp>1265971500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many feel that the original intent of this amendment was to maintain personal defense by way of individual gun ownership, and that the right to bear arms implies the right to take your personal gun and defend yourself when threatened. Threatening or harming those who are not threatening you isn't part of this amendment. There have been several instances of attempting to clarify and bring to terms with modern situations the meaning of this amendment over the centuries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many feel that the original intent of this amendment was to maintain personal defense by way of individual gun ownership , and that the right to bear arms implies the right to take your personal gun and defend yourself when threatened .
Threatening or harming those who are not threatening you is n't part of this amendment .
There have been several instances of attempting to clarify and bring to terms with modern situations the meaning of this amendment over the centuries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many feel that the original intent of this amendment was to maintain personal defense by way of individual gun ownership, and that the right to bear arms implies the right to take your personal gun and defend yourself when threatened.
Threatening or harming those who are not threatening you isn't part of this amendment.
There have been several instances of attempting to clarify and bring to terms with modern situations the meaning of this amendment over the centuries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119396</id>
	<title>Re:children at risk</title>
	<author>gravis777</author>
	<datestamp>1265970120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Texas Pledge? You mean, "Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible."</p><p>I have lived in Texas all my life, and never heard of this. Had to look it up online. In fact, I bet you would be pretty hard pressed to find a student who knows this. Its also getting harder and harder to find kids who know "Texas, Our Texas", and who could tell you what the state bird and tree are.</p><p>As a Christian, I admire what they are doing, but I do disagree. At least with teaching Creationism in the classroom. I feel that should be left to the parents and to churches. I am, however, of the belief that evolution should be taught as a "theory" and not as "a hard scientific fact". Do I believe that mutation can happen over time and lead to eventual evolution? Yes. Science has been shown to prove this. Do I believe that all life on earth evolved from some primordial soup? Heck no - that's more far more out there than Creationism theory - the chances of life evolving by chance are astronomical, and there is no hard data supporting that. As such, the best you can do is look at modern mutations, and then predict if you look at this in reverse, how life got to its present state.</p><p>Also, belief in creationism should not necessarially mean that one does not believe in evolution. Look at the creation story in Genesis - the ORDER in which life was created. Then think that maybe the "days" in Genesis may not be literal days, but periods of time, possibly millions of years. What do you have?</p><p>As for history, I am not really sure what the argument was here. People should not mistake the Christian foundation of the colonies with the foundation of the country (or the founding fathers). Many of the early settlers left England and other European countries searching for religious freedoms. If you want to look at it strictly on what was there at the time, you had Protestants, Catholics, and the breakaway Church of England. Whoever was in control of a country at a time had a habbit of smushing all others, driving them into private worship, or in some cases, having people put to death. People left to go to the colonies so they could practice their religions in peace and safety. The founding fathers knew this, and knew what state control of religion would lead to. Truthfully, I believe that seperation of church and state wasn't ment to infer that you cannot pray in school or anything like that (otherwise, that would have been put into place back in the late 1700s), but rather that the government would not dictate how one chooses to worship and their beliefs. No, really and truely, why are we making all of these assumptions about if stuff like placing the Ten Commandments in a government building is a violation of church and state? Do people honestly think this is new? It was happening in 1776. So why did the founding fathers not specifically state this, or try putting a stop to it?</p><p>So, yes, history should state about religious persecution in Europe in the middle ages, how Christians left Europe in search of religious freedoms, and how the founding fathers said that the government would dictate a specific religion or ones beliefs or how one is to worship. What is so controversal about that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Texas Pledge ?
You mean , " Honor the Texas flag ; I pledge allegiance to thee , Texas , one state under God , one and indivisible .
" I have lived in Texas all my life , and never heard of this .
Had to look it up online .
In fact , I bet you would be pretty hard pressed to find a student who knows this .
Its also getting harder and harder to find kids who know " Texas , Our Texas " , and who could tell you what the state bird and tree are.As a Christian , I admire what they are doing , but I do disagree .
At least with teaching Creationism in the classroom .
I feel that should be left to the parents and to churches .
I am , however , of the belief that evolution should be taught as a " theory " and not as " a hard scientific fact " .
Do I believe that mutation can happen over time and lead to eventual evolution ?
Yes. Science has been shown to prove this .
Do I believe that all life on earth evolved from some primordial soup ?
Heck no - that 's more far more out there than Creationism theory - the chances of life evolving by chance are astronomical , and there is no hard data supporting that .
As such , the best you can do is look at modern mutations , and then predict if you look at this in reverse , how life got to its present state.Also , belief in creationism should not necessarially mean that one does not believe in evolution .
Look at the creation story in Genesis - the ORDER in which life was created .
Then think that maybe the " days " in Genesis may not be literal days , but periods of time , possibly millions of years .
What do you have ? As for history , I am not really sure what the argument was here .
People should not mistake the Christian foundation of the colonies with the foundation of the country ( or the founding fathers ) .
Many of the early settlers left England and other European countries searching for religious freedoms .
If you want to look at it strictly on what was there at the time , you had Protestants , Catholics , and the breakaway Church of England .
Whoever was in control of a country at a time had a habbit of smushing all others , driving them into private worship , or in some cases , having people put to death .
People left to go to the colonies so they could practice their religions in peace and safety .
The founding fathers knew this , and knew what state control of religion would lead to .
Truthfully , I believe that seperation of church and state was n't ment to infer that you can not pray in school or anything like that ( otherwise , that would have been put into place back in the late 1700s ) , but rather that the government would not dictate how one chooses to worship and their beliefs .
No , really and truely , why are we making all of these assumptions about if stuff like placing the Ten Commandments in a government building is a violation of church and state ?
Do people honestly think this is new ?
It was happening in 1776 .
So why did the founding fathers not specifically state this , or try putting a stop to it ? So , yes , history should state about religious persecution in Europe in the middle ages , how Christians left Europe in search of religious freedoms , and how the founding fathers said that the government would dictate a specific religion or ones beliefs or how one is to worship .
What is so controversal about that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Texas Pledge?
You mean, "Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible.
"I have lived in Texas all my life, and never heard of this.
Had to look it up online.
In fact, I bet you would be pretty hard pressed to find a student who knows this.
Its also getting harder and harder to find kids who know "Texas, Our Texas", and who could tell you what the state bird and tree are.As a Christian, I admire what they are doing, but I do disagree.
At least with teaching Creationism in the classroom.
I feel that should be left to the parents and to churches.
I am, however, of the belief that evolution should be taught as a "theory" and not as "a hard scientific fact".
Do I believe that mutation can happen over time and lead to eventual evolution?
Yes. Science has been shown to prove this.
Do I believe that all life on earth evolved from some primordial soup?
Heck no - that's more far more out there than Creationism theory - the chances of life evolving by chance are astronomical, and there is no hard data supporting that.
As such, the best you can do is look at modern mutations, and then predict if you look at this in reverse, how life got to its present state.Also, belief in creationism should not necessarially mean that one does not believe in evolution.
Look at the creation story in Genesis - the ORDER in which life was created.
Then think that maybe the "days" in Genesis may not be literal days, but periods of time, possibly millions of years.
What do you have?As for history, I am not really sure what the argument was here.
People should not mistake the Christian foundation of the colonies with the foundation of the country (or the founding fathers).
Many of the early settlers left England and other European countries searching for religious freedoms.
If you want to look at it strictly on what was there at the time, you had Protestants, Catholics, and the breakaway Church of England.
Whoever was in control of a country at a time had a habbit of smushing all others, driving them into private worship, or in some cases, having people put to death.
People left to go to the colonies so they could practice their religions in peace and safety.
The founding fathers knew this, and knew what state control of religion would lead to.
Truthfully, I believe that seperation of church and state wasn't ment to infer that you cannot pray in school or anything like that (otherwise, that would have been put into place back in the late 1700s), but rather that the government would not dictate how one chooses to worship and their beliefs.
No, really and truely, why are we making all of these assumptions about if stuff like placing the Ten Commandments in a government building is a violation of church and state?
Do people honestly think this is new?
It was happening in 1776.
So why did the founding fathers not specifically state this, or try putting a stop to it?So, yes, history should state about religious persecution in Europe in the middle ages, how Christians left Europe in search of religious freedoms, and how the founding fathers said that the government would dictate a specific religion or ones beliefs or how one is to worship.
What is so controversal about that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122960</id>
	<title>Re:Dominionism at play</title>
	<author>zigmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1265984100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's really that bad out there? Jeebus, I better stock up on bibles and ammo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's really that bad out there ?
Jeebus , I better stock up on bibles and ammo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's really that bad out there?
Jeebus, I better stock up on bibles and ammo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31124094</id>
	<title>The Power Of Texas</title>
	<author>the eric conspiracy</author>
	<datestamp>1265993400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thesis of this summary is rather exaggerated. Texas is only the 4th most populous state that uses a statewide approval system. States like California and Florida purchase far more texbooks than Texas does.</p><p>In addition the Texas selection process has attracted so much attention over the years that it is now a battle between all sorts of interests, not just a forum for the far Right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thesis of this summary is rather exaggerated .
Texas is only the 4th most populous state that uses a statewide approval system .
States like California and Florida purchase far more texbooks than Texas does.In addition the Texas selection process has attracted so much attention over the years that it is now a battle between all sorts of interests , not just a forum for the far Right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thesis of this summary is rather exaggerated.
Texas is only the 4th most populous state that uses a statewide approval system.
States like California and Florida purchase far more texbooks than Texas does.In addition the Texas selection process has attracted so much attention over the years that it is now a battle between all sorts of interests, not just a forum for the far Right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119234</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265969640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So keep your religious crap out of our public schools.</p></div><p>OUR public schools? If the parents in that district agree that religion should, or should not, be included in the lessons, who are you or I to tell them otherwise?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So keep your religious crap out of our public schools.OUR public schools ?
If the parents in that district agree that religion should , or should not , be included in the lessons , who are you or I to tell them otherwise ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So keep your religious crap out of our public schools.OUR public schools?
If the parents in that district agree that religion should, or should not, be included in the lessons, who are you or I to tell them otherwise?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120056</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265971920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And keep your anti-religious crap out of our public schools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And keep your anti-religious crap out of our public schools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And keep your anti-religious crap out of our public schools.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121268</id>
	<title>Re:How bad could it be?</title>
	<author>NewPapa</author>
	<datestamp>1265975940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It always strikes me as funny when people try to claim GW was uneducated or a moron
yet he graduated from Yale and Harvard.  Yeah that sure sounds like he was uneducated to me.

On the surface people liked to make fun of the way he talked or his mannerisms, but underneath
it all, I feel most of his criticisms were an opposition to his policies, so it then becomes easy
for people to attack him as "stupid" in their eyes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It always strikes me as funny when people try to claim GW was uneducated or a moron yet he graduated from Yale and Harvard .
Yeah that sure sounds like he was uneducated to me .
On the surface people liked to make fun of the way he talked or his mannerisms , but underneath it all , I feel most of his criticisms were an opposition to his policies , so it then becomes easy for people to attack him as " stupid " in their eyes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It always strikes me as funny when people try to claim GW was uneducated or a moron
yet he graduated from Yale and Harvard.
Yeah that sure sounds like he was uneducated to me.
On the surface people liked to make fun of the way he talked or his mannerisms, but underneath
it all, I feel most of his criticisms were an opposition to his policies, so it then becomes easy
for people to attack him as "stupid" in their eyes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122836</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>zigmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1265983320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that Separation of Church and State is inherently a good thing, however the Constitution specifically only limits Congress from making any laws regarding the regulation, funding etc. of religion. Not the States. For a long time after the revolution many States had an official religion, and that doesn't contradict the Constitution, simply because the Constitution is only restricting Congress in this matter. More generally though, the States should write it into their constitutions too, but that's their business, not the Feds.<br>Also, to make sure we are aware how silly this entire argument is, anything not expressly given to the Federal Govt. was expressly forbidden. Education would be one of those things. In other words it is then the individual states' business how to go about public education (according to the law in theory) not the Feds. You might not agree with this, but then you could get the Constitution amended instead of just papering over it. I don't necessarily agree with any of that, but that is what the law says. Now if you can't be bothered to go about it right for an issue that you want changed, why should somebody else be bothered to do the same when it's an issue you don't want changed? (Patriot Act et. al.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that Separation of Church and State is inherently a good thing , however the Constitution specifically only limits Congress from making any laws regarding the regulation , funding etc .
of religion .
Not the States .
For a long time after the revolution many States had an official religion , and that does n't contradict the Constitution , simply because the Constitution is only restricting Congress in this matter .
More generally though , the States should write it into their constitutions too , but that 's their business , not the Feds.Also , to make sure we are aware how silly this entire argument is , anything not expressly given to the Federal Govt .
was expressly forbidden .
Education would be one of those things .
In other words it is then the individual states ' business how to go about public education ( according to the law in theory ) not the Feds .
You might not agree with this , but then you could get the Constitution amended instead of just papering over it .
I do n't necessarily agree with any of that , but that is what the law says .
Now if you ca n't be bothered to go about it right for an issue that you want changed , why should somebody else be bothered to do the same when it 's an issue you do n't want changed ?
( Patriot Act et .
al. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that Separation of Church and State is inherently a good thing, however the Constitution specifically only limits Congress from making any laws regarding the regulation, funding etc.
of religion.
Not the States.
For a long time after the revolution many States had an official religion, and that doesn't contradict the Constitution, simply because the Constitution is only restricting Congress in this matter.
More generally though, the States should write it into their constitutions too, but that's their business, not the Feds.Also, to make sure we are aware how silly this entire argument is, anything not expressly given to the Federal Govt.
was expressly forbidden.
Education would be one of those things.
In other words it is then the individual states' business how to go about public education (according to the law in theory) not the Feds.
You might not agree with this, but then you could get the Constitution amended instead of just papering over it.
I don't necessarily agree with any of that, but that is what the law says.
Now if you can't be bothered to go about it right for an issue that you want changed, why should somebody else be bothered to do the same when it's an issue you don't want changed?
(Patriot Act et.
al.)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117564</id>
	<title>The European lesson.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1265965380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that religious education is often compulsory, and look at how many of them go to church : zero.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that religious education is often compulsory , and look at how many of them go to church : zero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that religious education is often compulsory, and look at how many of them go to church : zero.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31125158</id>
	<title>Re:Does curriculum matter anymore in the Google Ag</title>
	<author>lawnboy5-O</author>
	<datestamp>1266092940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I figure that there should be mandatory classes, at the mid to upper high school level,
in basic epistemology and metaphysics..."
<br> <br>
When I was studying philosophy as an undergrad in the early 90's, I took an interesting education/epistomology class that spoke to these efforts exactly - but futile as many will rightfully point out for so many reasons! - as the effort dates back centuries even; as old as endeavors for mass education is itself.
<br> <br>
The truth is our EDU system represents nothing more then the Guns &amp; Butter factories of the 1940's it was inteneded to serve.  YES YES YES - its a little better then inception, when our schools were built through our the 40's aqnd 50's and the ground work laid for ensuing decades...  buts its the same dang framwork and still very slow to change in anyway. Basic math, basic vocab, basic art and fitness - as quick as you can 'cause we gotta make stuff and feed people, have them bee able to count money and follow street signs, blah blah blah, at a bare minumum.
<br> <br>
And in today's schools, 86 the art and creativity stuff as its too expensive.  After school prgrams as well - just not important anymore. Wonder why we are fat and boring and gullable and lemmings!!!
<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...can anyone honestly look at the requirements for graduating HS and think they are good???    Its a mess people.  We are the laughing stock of the western world and haveing our asses handed to us be emerging countries with more effective systems of education.
<br> <br>
You don't even need a pulse to get through a USA HS curriculum. And there is sooooo much competition at the priviledged levels - jamm packed at times with kids only a hair-line away from each other w/ re: grades (wallets, social status, adresses, pro'lly gene pool as well)...  wouldn't you think the system just isn't diverse or demanding enough???  Hell even my cat looks as smart as yours in a room full of mice.
<br> <br>
Real education for the masses is a long ways away in the USA.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...partly due to the same politics this article is related to.
<br> <br>
In europe they will tell about PhD bank tellers because there are too many that are over educated...   really? Over educated? is that a possiblity? (deserves a sepaerate thread i thinks...).  Possibly if you encouraged a creative aspect of the curriculum - art, economics, cooking - someone could imainge a new way to apply all that great economicm social, mathematical, and behavorial science skill into somthin useful... like, i dont know - educating more freaking people!!!!!
<br> <br>
but admittedly, we all dont have Socrates (or whomever in dialog) to walk around and hand hold us for the those first few years it really counts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I figure that there should be mandatory classes , at the mid to upper high school level , in basic epistemology and metaphysics... " When I was studying philosophy as an undergrad in the early 90 's , I took an interesting education/epistomology class that spoke to these efforts exactly - but futile as many will rightfully point out for so many reasons !
- as the effort dates back centuries even ; as old as endeavors for mass education is itself .
The truth is our EDU system represents nothing more then the Guns &amp; Butter factories of the 1940 's it was inteneded to serve .
YES YES YES - its a little better then inception , when our schools were built through our the 40 's aqnd 50 's and the ground work laid for ensuing decades... buts its the same dang framwork and still very slow to change in anyway .
Basic math , basic vocab , basic art and fitness - as quick as you can 'cause we got ta make stuff and feed people , have them bee able to count money and follow street signs , blah blah blah , at a bare minumum .
And in today 's schools , 86 the art and creativity stuff as its too expensive .
After school prgrams as well - just not important anymore .
Wonder why we are fat and boring and gullable and lemmings ! ! !
...can anyone honestly look at the requirements for graduating HS and think they are good ? ? ?
Its a mess people .
We are the laughing stock of the western world and haveing our asses handed to us be emerging countries with more effective systems of education .
You do n't even need a pulse to get through a USA HS curriculum .
And there is sooooo much competition at the priviledged levels - jamm packed at times with kids only a hair-line away from each other w/ re : grades ( wallets , social status , adresses , pro'lly gene pool as well ) ... would n't you think the system just is n't diverse or demanding enough ? ? ?
Hell even my cat looks as smart as yours in a room full of mice .
Real education for the masses is a long ways away in the USA .
...partly due to the same politics this article is related to .
In europe they will tell about PhD bank tellers because there are too many that are over educated... really ? Over educated ?
is that a possiblity ?
( deserves a sepaerate thread i thinks... ) .
Possibly if you encouraged a creative aspect of the curriculum - art , economics , cooking - someone could imainge a new way to apply all that great economicm social , mathematical , and behavorial science skill into somthin useful... like , i dont know - educating more freaking people ! ! ! ! !
but admittedly , we all dont have Socrates ( or whomever in dialog ) to walk around and hand hold us for the those first few years it really counts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I figure that there should be mandatory classes, at the mid to upper high school level,
in basic epistemology and metaphysics..."
 
When I was studying philosophy as an undergrad in the early 90's, I took an interesting education/epistomology class that spoke to these efforts exactly - but futile as many will rightfully point out for so many reasons!
- as the effort dates back centuries even; as old as endeavors for mass education is itself.
The truth is our EDU system represents nothing more then the Guns &amp; Butter factories of the 1940's it was inteneded to serve.
YES YES YES - its a little better then inception, when our schools were built through our the 40's aqnd 50's and the ground work laid for ensuing decades...  buts its the same dang framwork and still very slow to change in anyway.
Basic math, basic vocab, basic art and fitness - as quick as you can 'cause we gotta make stuff and feed people, have them bee able to count money and follow street signs, blah blah blah, at a bare minumum.
And in today's schools, 86 the art and creativity stuff as its too expensive.
After school prgrams as well - just not important anymore.
Wonder why we are fat and boring and gullable and lemmings!!!
...can anyone honestly look at the requirements for graduating HS and think they are good???
Its a mess people.
We are the laughing stock of the western world and haveing our asses handed to us be emerging countries with more effective systems of education.
You don't even need a pulse to get through a USA HS curriculum.
And there is sooooo much competition at the priviledged levels - jamm packed at times with kids only a hair-line away from each other w/ re: grades (wallets, social status, adresses, pro'lly gene pool as well)...  wouldn't you think the system just isn't diverse or demanding enough???
Hell even my cat looks as smart as yours in a room full of mice.
Real education for the masses is a long ways away in the USA.
...partly due to the same politics this article is related to.
In europe they will tell about PhD bank tellers because there are too many that are over educated...   really? Over educated?
is that a possiblity?
(deserves a sepaerate thread i thinks...).
Possibly if you encouraged a creative aspect of the curriculum - art, economics, cooking - someone could imainge a new way to apply all that great economicm social, mathematical, and behavorial science skill into somthin useful... like, i dont know - educating more freaking people!!!!!
but admittedly, we all dont have Socrates (or whomever in dialog) to walk around and hand hold us for the those first few years it really counts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118692</id>
	<title>Re:children at risk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265968320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The problem with these nut cases in Texas is they have no faith. No amount of science will sway me from what i feel to be true. No amount of world religions will change my mind what I know to be right. This does not mean I am inflexible, but that flexibility comes with experience, not cult brain washing. And because these people have not faith, how can they build faith in their children. They can't. So they limit their exposure to the world knowing the false faith could never withstand the truths in the world.</p></div></blockquote><p>Here's a quick question: do your parents share your religion? Statistically, almost all religious people follow their parents religion. Very, very few people actually convert from their parents religion to another.</p><p>It might not have been violent or painful, but the evidence suggests that yes, in fact, the reason why you believe in your religion is due to the gentle and loving brainwashing of your parents, along with their inherent genetic predisposition.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with these nut cases in Texas is they have no faith .
No amount of science will sway me from what i feel to be true .
No amount of world religions will change my mind what I know to be right .
This does not mean I am inflexible , but that flexibility comes with experience , not cult brain washing .
And because these people have not faith , how can they build faith in their children .
They ca n't .
So they limit their exposure to the world knowing the false faith could never withstand the truths in the world.Here 's a quick question : do your parents share your religion ?
Statistically , almost all religious people follow their parents religion .
Very , very few people actually convert from their parents religion to another.It might not have been violent or painful , but the evidence suggests that yes , in fact , the reason why you believe in your religion is due to the gentle and loving brainwashing of your parents , along with their inherent genetic predisposition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with these nut cases in Texas is they have no faith.
No amount of science will sway me from what i feel to be true.
No amount of world religions will change my mind what I know to be right.
This does not mean I am inflexible, but that flexibility comes with experience, not cult brain washing.
And because these people have not faith, how can they build faith in their children.
They can't.
So they limit their exposure to the world knowing the false faith could never withstand the truths in the world.Here's a quick question: do your parents share your religion?
Statistically, almost all religious people follow their parents religion.
Very, very few people actually convert from their parents religion to another.It might not have been violent or painful, but the evidence suggests that yes, in fact, the reason why you believe in your religion is due to the gentle and loving brainwashing of your parents, along with their inherent genetic predisposition.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121708</id>
	<title>Re:"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265978100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Having a personal right to go buy a fully automatic assault rifle and fire it off in your backyard isn't part of this amendment.</p></div><p>Ignoring the reference to firing a rifle in your backyard, which is a straw man argument, or possibly just a bit of hyperbole to emphasize your point, how could the 2A be taken to not protect that right? Of what use is the right to join the militia without the right to own military style weapons?</p><p>It seems clear from the writings of the time that it was intended to provide defence against armies both of foreign invaders or of tyrannical governments. What sort of nonsense would lead you to believe the amendment only provides for the use of inadequate firearms to deal with foreign invasion?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having a personal right to go buy a fully automatic assault rifle and fire it off in your backyard is n't part of this amendment.Ignoring the reference to firing a rifle in your backyard , which is a straw man argument , or possibly just a bit of hyperbole to emphasize your point , how could the 2A be taken to not protect that right ?
Of what use is the right to join the militia without the right to own military style weapons ? It seems clear from the writings of the time that it was intended to provide defence against armies both of foreign invaders or of tyrannical governments .
What sort of nonsense would lead you to believe the amendment only provides for the use of inadequate firearms to deal with foreign invasion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having a personal right to go buy a fully automatic assault rifle and fire it off in your backyard isn't part of this amendment.Ignoring the reference to firing a rifle in your backyard, which is a straw man argument, or possibly just a bit of hyperbole to emphasize your point, how could the 2A be taken to not protect that right?
Of what use is the right to join the militia without the right to own military style weapons?It seems clear from the writings of the time that it was intended to provide defence against armies both of foreign invaders or of tyrannical governments.
What sort of nonsense would lead you to believe the amendment only provides for the use of inadequate firearms to deal with foreign invasion?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120934</id>
	<title>historical La Marseillaise disagrees</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265974800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and it does not support your assertion that, historically, bearing Arms meant being part of an army.</p><p>"To arms, citizens," is a very clear reference to citizens, i.e. NOT MEMBERS OF AN ARMY, having arms and bearing them for <b>revolutionary purposes</b> (much like Washington, Jefferson, et.al. did) instead of in defense of your threatened nation.</p><p>It is ludicrous to suggest that the authors of the Amendment would have been unaware of this particular historical usage that it is citizens who can and should be able to bear Arms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and it does not support your assertion that , historically , bearing Arms meant being part of an army .
" To arms , citizens , " is a very clear reference to citizens , i.e .
NOT MEMBERS OF AN ARMY , having arms and bearing them for revolutionary purposes ( much like Washington , Jefferson , et.al .
did ) instead of in defense of your threatened nation.It is ludicrous to suggest that the authors of the Amendment would have been unaware of this particular historical usage that it is citizens who can and should be able to bear Arms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and it does not support your assertion that, historically, bearing Arms meant being part of an army.
"To arms, citizens," is a very clear reference to citizens, i.e.
NOT MEMBERS OF AN ARMY, having arms and bearing them for revolutionary purposes (much like Washington, Jefferson, et.al.
did) instead of in defense of your threatened nation.It is ludicrous to suggest that the authors of the Amendment would have been unaware of this particular historical usage that it is citizens who can and should be able to bear Arms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118280</id>
	<title>Re:Refreshing!</title>
	<author>tboulan</author>
	<datestamp>1265967300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Re-writing history to inure a political viewpoint? This is nothing new. At least these folks are being honest about their goals; that's a refreshing approach <b>for</b> narrow-minded zealots.</p></div><p>
fixed that for ya</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Re-writing history to inure a political viewpoint ?
This is nothing new .
At least these folks are being honest about their goals ; that 's a refreshing approach for narrow-minded zealots .
fixed that for ya</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Re-writing history to inure a political viewpoint?
This is nothing new.
At least these folks are being honest about their goals; that's a refreshing approach for narrow-minded zealots.
fixed that for ya
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122640</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory Richard Feynman on Textbooks</title>
	<author>toxicity69</author>
	<datestamp>1265982300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>tl;dr</htmltext>
<tokenext>tl ; dr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tl;dr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117938</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265966520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's fine, let's take everything that can't be scientifically verified out.  Whoops, there goes <b>macro</b>evolution*.  Whoops, there goes <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws\_of\_thermodynamics" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">the big bang</a> [wikipedia.org].  Whoops, there goes the <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101245.htm" title="sciencedaily.com" rel="nofollow">primordial soup</a> [sciencedaily.com].</p><p>Look, the science for all of this stuff hasn't been figured out yet.  Let's take the religion out, because we don't know if it's correct or not.  So let's also take out the science that keeps getting revised until it's nice and definite.  And what if it isn't definite and never will be?  Too freakin' bad - you put down what is known and leave the rest empty!</p><p>Oh?  What's that? You want to put in some theories anyway?  Hey, how about this!  You put in a few alternate theories, and you <b>label them as theories</b>.</p><p>*note that I'm not talking about the adaptation of bacteria or the expressing/repressing of genes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's fine , let 's take everything that ca n't be scientifically verified out .
Whoops , there goes macroevolution * .
Whoops , there goes the big bang [ wikipedia.org ] .
Whoops , there goes the primordial soup [ sciencedaily.com ] .Look , the science for all of this stuff has n't been figured out yet .
Let 's take the religion out , because we do n't know if it 's correct or not .
So let 's also take out the science that keeps getting revised until it 's nice and definite .
And what if it is n't definite and never will be ?
Too freakin ' bad - you put down what is known and leave the rest empty ! Oh ?
What 's that ?
You want to put in some theories anyway ?
Hey , how about this !
You put in a few alternate theories , and you label them as theories .
* note that I 'm not talking about the adaptation of bacteria or the expressing/repressing of genes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's fine, let's take everything that can't be scientifically verified out.
Whoops, there goes macroevolution*.
Whoops, there goes the big bang [wikipedia.org].
Whoops, there goes the primordial soup [sciencedaily.com].Look, the science for all of this stuff hasn't been figured out yet.
Let's take the religion out, because we don't know if it's correct or not.
So let's also take out the science that keeps getting revised until it's nice and definite.
And what if it isn't definite and never will be?
Too freakin' bad - you put down what is known and leave the rest empty!Oh?
What's that?
You want to put in some theories anyway?
Hey, how about this!
You put in a few alternate theories, and you label them as theories.
*note that I'm not talking about the adaptation of bacteria or the expressing/repressing of genes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121454</id>
	<title>Re:How bad could it be?</title>
	<author>Arterion</author>
	<datestamp>1265976960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, more ammo for my argument that GPA means absolutely nothing beyond being diligent in completing assignments -- definitely not correlated with intelligence.  In my experience the smartest kids are usually so bored with their studies they don't have the resolve to really apply themselves to completing them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , more ammo for my argument that GPA means absolutely nothing beyond being diligent in completing assignments -- definitely not correlated with intelligence .
In my experience the smartest kids are usually so bored with their studies they do n't have the resolve to really apply themselves to completing them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, more ammo for my argument that GPA means absolutely nothing beyond being diligent in completing assignments -- definitely not correlated with intelligence.
In my experience the smartest kids are usually so bored with their studies they don't have the resolve to really apply themselves to completing them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117392</id>
	<title>Re:How bad could it be?</title>
	<author>megamerican</author>
	<datestamp>1266008100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>George W. Bush spent most of his academic career in private schools in New England.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>George W. Bush spent most of his academic career in private schools in New England .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>George W. Bush spent most of his academic career in private schools in New England.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118488</id>
	<title>Re:A note for Christians and Atheists</title>
	<author>bugs2squash</author>
	<datestamp>1265967780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>oh - and France of course, being secular.</htmltext>
<tokenext>oh - and France of course , being secular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>oh - and France of course, being secular.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117674</id>
	<title>Re:People weren't aware of this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265965680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I don't understand is why nothing is done about it. If one of the states is amassing so much power that it eclipses the power of the other states and the federal government, threatening the very fabric of the country, it should be split up amongst its neighbours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't understand is why nothing is done about it .
If one of the states is amassing so much power that it eclipses the power of the other states and the federal government , threatening the very fabric of the country , it should be split up amongst its neighbours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't understand is why nothing is done about it.
If one of the states is amassing so much power that it eclipses the power of the other states and the federal government, threatening the very fabric of the country, it should be split up amongst its neighbours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118884</id>
	<title>Obligatory Richard Feynman on Textbooks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265968740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://www.gorgorat.com/#49" title="gorgorat.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.gorgorat.com/#49</a> [gorgorat.com] </p><ul> <li>Judging Books by Their Covers</li></ul><p>
     After the war, physicists were often asked to go to Washington and give<br>advice to various sections of the  government, especially the military. What<br>happened,  I suppose, is that since the scientists had made these bombs that<br>were so important, the military felt we were useful for something.<br>
     Once I was asked to serve on a committee which was to evaluate  various<br>weapons for the army, and I wrote a letter  back which explained that  I was<br>only a theoretical physicist,  and I didn't know anything about  weapons for<br>the army.<br>
     The  army  responded  that  they had  found  in their  experience  that<br>theoretical  physicists were  very  useful  to them in making decisions,  so<br>would I please reconsider?<br>
     I wrote back  again and said I didn't really know anything, and doubted<br>I could help them.<br>
     Finally I got a letter from the Secretary of the Army, which proposed a<br>compromise: I would come to  the first meeting, where I could listen and see<br>whether I could make a  contribution or not. Then I could  decide  whether I<br>should continue.<br>
     I said I would, of course. What else could I do?<br>
     I  went down  to Washington and  the first thing that I went  to  was a<br>cocktail party to meet everybody. There  were generals  and  other important<br>characters from the army, and everybody talked. It was pleasant enough.<br>
     One guy in a uniform came to me and told me that the army was glad that<br>physicists were advising the military because it had  a lot of problems. One<br>of the problems was that tanks use up their fuel very quickly and thus can't<br>go very far. So the question was  how to refuel them as they're going along.<br>Now this  guy had the idea that, since the physicists  can get energy out of<br>uranium,  could I work out a way in which we  could  use silicon dioxide  --<br>sand, dirt -- as  a fuel?  If that were  possible, then all this  tank would<br>have to do would be to have a little scoop underneath, and as it goes along,<br>it would pick up the dirt and use it for  fuel! He thought  that was a great<br>idea, and that all I had to  do was to work out  the  details. That was  the<br>kind of problem I thought we would be talking about in the  meeting the next<br>day.<br>
     I went  to the meeting and noticed that some guy  who had introduced me<br>to all the people at the  cocktail party was  sitting  next  to  me. He  was<br>apparently some flunky assigned to be at my  side at  all times. On my other<br>side was some super general I had heard of before.<br>
     At the first  session of the meeting  they  talked about some technical<br>matters, and I made a  few  comments.  But later on,  near  the end  of  the<br>meeting, they began to discuss some problem of logistics, about which I knew<br>nothing. It  had to do  with figuring  out how much stuff you should have at<br>different  places at different times. And although I tried  to keep  my trap<br>shut, when you get into a situation like that, where you're sitting around a<br>table  with  all  these  "important  people"  discussing  these   "important<br>problems,"  you  <i>can't</i>  keep your mouth  shut,  even  if  you  know  nothing<br>whatsoever! So I made some comments in that discussion, too.<br>
     During the next coffee break the guy  who had been assigned to shepherd<br>me around said, "I was  very  impressed by  the  things you said  during the<br>discussion. They certainly were an important contribution."<br>
     I stopped and thought about my "contribution" to the logistics proble</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.gorgorat.com/ # 49 [ gorgorat.com ] Judging Books by Their Covers After the war , physicists were often asked to go to Washington and giveadvice to various sections of the government , especially the military .
Whathappened , I suppose , is that since the scientists had made these bombs thatwere so important , the military felt we were useful for something .
Once I was asked to serve on a committee which was to evaluate variousweapons for the army , and I wrote a letter back which explained that I wasonly a theoretical physicist , and I did n't know anything about weapons forthe army .
The army responded that they had found in their experience thattheoretical physicists were very useful to them in making decisions , sowould I please reconsider ?
I wrote back again and said I did n't really know anything , and doubtedI could help them .
Finally I got a letter from the Secretary of the Army , which proposed acompromise : I would come to the first meeting , where I could listen and seewhether I could make a contribution or not .
Then I could decide whether Ishould continue .
I said I would , of course .
What else could I do ?
I went down to Washington and the first thing that I went to was acocktail party to meet everybody .
There were generals and other importantcharacters from the army , and everybody talked .
It was pleasant enough .
One guy in a uniform came to me and told me that the army was glad thatphysicists were advising the military because it had a lot of problems .
Oneof the problems was that tanks use up their fuel very quickly and thus can'tgo very far .
So the question was how to refuel them as they 're going along.Now this guy had the idea that , since the physicists can get energy out ofuranium , could I work out a way in which we could use silicon dioxide --sand , dirt -- as a fuel ?
If that were possible , then all this tank wouldhave to do would be to have a little scoop underneath , and as it goes along,it would pick up the dirt and use it for fuel !
He thought that was a greatidea , and that all I had to do was to work out the details .
That was thekind of problem I thought we would be talking about in the meeting the nextday .
I went to the meeting and noticed that some guy who had introduced meto all the people at the cocktail party was sitting next to me .
He wasapparently some flunky assigned to be at my side at all times .
On my otherside was some super general I had heard of before .
At the first session of the meeting they talked about some technicalmatters , and I made a few comments .
But later on , near the end of themeeting , they began to discuss some problem of logistics , about which I knewnothing .
It had to do with figuring out how much stuff you should have atdifferent places at different times .
And although I tried to keep my trapshut , when you get into a situation like that , where you 're sitting around atable with all these " important people " discussing these " importantproblems , " you ca n't keep your mouth shut , even if you know nothingwhatsoever !
So I made some comments in that discussion , too .
During the next coffee break the guy who had been assigned to shepherdme around said , " I was very impressed by the things you said during thediscussion .
They certainly were an important contribution .
" I stopped and thought about my " contribution " to the logistics proble</tokentext>
<sentencetext> http://www.gorgorat.com/#49 [gorgorat.com]  Judging Books by Their Covers
     After the war, physicists were often asked to go to Washington and giveadvice to various sections of the  government, especially the military.
Whathappened,  I suppose, is that since the scientists had made these bombs thatwere so important, the military felt we were useful for something.
Once I was asked to serve on a committee which was to evaluate  variousweapons for the army, and I wrote a letter  back which explained that  I wasonly a theoretical physicist,  and I didn't know anything about  weapons forthe army.
The  army  responded  that  they had  found  in their  experience  thattheoretical  physicists were  very  useful  to them in making decisions,  sowould I please reconsider?
I wrote back  again and said I didn't really know anything, and doubtedI could help them.
Finally I got a letter from the Secretary of the Army, which proposed acompromise: I would come to  the first meeting, where I could listen and seewhether I could make a  contribution or not.
Then I could  decide  whether Ishould continue.
I said I would, of course.
What else could I do?
I  went down  to Washington and  the first thing that I went  to  was acocktail party to meet everybody.
There  were generals  and  other importantcharacters from the army, and everybody talked.
It was pleasant enough.
One guy in a uniform came to me and told me that the army was glad thatphysicists were advising the military because it had  a lot of problems.
Oneof the problems was that tanks use up their fuel very quickly and thus can'tgo very far.
So the question was  how to refuel them as they're going along.Now this  guy had the idea that, since the physicists  can get energy out ofuranium,  could I work out a way in which we  could  use silicon dioxide  --sand, dirt -- as  a fuel?
If that were  possible, then all this  tank wouldhave to do would be to have a little scoop underneath, and as it goes along,it would pick up the dirt and use it for  fuel!
He thought  that was a greatidea, and that all I had to  do was to work out  the  details.
That was  thekind of problem I thought we would be talking about in the  meeting the nextday.
I went  to the meeting and noticed that some guy  who had introduced meto all the people at the  cocktail party was  sitting  next  to  me.
He  wasapparently some flunky assigned to be at my  side at  all times.
On my otherside was some super general I had heard of before.
At the first  session of the meeting  they  talked about some technicalmatters, and I made a  few  comments.
But later on,  near  the end  of  themeeting, they began to discuss some problem of logistics, about which I knewnothing.
It  had to do  with figuring  out how much stuff you should have atdifferent  places at different times.
And although I tried  to keep  my trapshut, when you get into a situation like that, where you're sitting around atable  with  all  these  "important  people"  discussing  these   "importantproblems,"  you  can't  keep your mouth  shut,  even  if  you  know  nothingwhatsoever!
So I made some comments in that discussion, too.
During the next coffee break the guy  who had been assigned to shepherdme around said, "I was  very  impressed by  the  things you said  during thediscussion.
They certainly were an important contribution.
"
     I stopped and thought about my "contribution" to the logistics proble</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120008</id>
	<title>if you don't like it, run for shool board</title>
	<author>bonkeydcow</author>
	<datestamp>1265971740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Elections have consequences. These board members ran and were elected. They have the right to choose the books they want. If you don't think they are intellectual enough, then elect intellectuals. Just because they are being lobbied, does not mean they will make an ill-informed decision. Your anti-Texas bigotry aside.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Elections have consequences .
These board members ran and were elected .
They have the right to choose the books they want .
If you do n't think they are intellectual enough , then elect intellectuals .
Just because they are being lobbied , does not mean they will make an ill-informed decision .
Your anti-Texas bigotry aside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Elections have consequences.
These board members ran and were elected.
They have the right to choose the books they want.
If you don't think they are intellectual enough, then elect intellectuals.
Just because they are being lobbied, does not mean they will make an ill-informed decision.
Your anti-Texas bigotry aside.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31144676</id>
	<title>Re:People weren't aware of this?</title>
	<author>Sally Forth</author>
	<datestamp>1266252480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nazism and the Russian revolution had their roots in atheism. Your analogy disproves its own point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nazism and the Russian revolution had their roots in atheism .
Your analogy disproves its own point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nazism and the Russian revolution had their roots in atheism.
Your analogy disproves its own point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121818</id>
	<title>Re:How bad could it be?</title>
	<author>DarkOx</author>
	<datestamp>1265978580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know you are trying but I sometimes wonder if its even worth answering the partisan hate mongers on both sides.  Neo-Conservatives generally get more guff for not listening to the other side; but frankly I wonder if that has to do with the fact the uber-liberals seem to find the more amazing heights of hypocrisy and unfounded claims.</p><p>The Obama team last week was particularly impressive, after campaigning on how the Bush wiretapping program violated civil liberties they sent their lawyers to argue that they should be able to listen to celluar calls and collect geographic data from them without warrants.</p><p>They also had the Vice President saying the Iraq was going to be one of the administration's great accomplishments, while they continue to claim they inherited the economic problems.  Its plain to any thinking person that lots more economic policy changes have been enacted under the current administration than mission changes in Iraq and that even if some of the measures are working they have not had the effects that were advertised.  I can sound positions giving Obama credit for both or neither but I really can't how he can take credit for one and not the other.  It looks like a outrageous attempt to be responsible for the successes and continue to blame Bush for the failures.</p><p>At least the Neo-Con crowd consistently denies the same realities.  Deficits don't matter, You're with us or your Against us, Evolution, etc, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know you are trying but I sometimes wonder if its even worth answering the partisan hate mongers on both sides .
Neo-Conservatives generally get more guff for not listening to the other side ; but frankly I wonder if that has to do with the fact the uber-liberals seem to find the more amazing heights of hypocrisy and unfounded claims.The Obama team last week was particularly impressive , after campaigning on how the Bush wiretapping program violated civil liberties they sent their lawyers to argue that they should be able to listen to celluar calls and collect geographic data from them without warrants.They also had the Vice President saying the Iraq was going to be one of the administration 's great accomplishments , while they continue to claim they inherited the economic problems .
Its plain to any thinking person that lots more economic policy changes have been enacted under the current administration than mission changes in Iraq and that even if some of the measures are working they have not had the effects that were advertised .
I can sound positions giving Obama credit for both or neither but I really ca n't how he can take credit for one and not the other .
It looks like a outrageous attempt to be responsible for the successes and continue to blame Bush for the failures.At least the Neo-Con crowd consistently denies the same realities .
Deficits do n't matter , You 're with us or your Against us , Evolution , etc , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know you are trying but I sometimes wonder if its even worth answering the partisan hate mongers on both sides.
Neo-Conservatives generally get more guff for not listening to the other side; but frankly I wonder if that has to do with the fact the uber-liberals seem to find the more amazing heights of hypocrisy and unfounded claims.The Obama team last week was particularly impressive, after campaigning on how the Bush wiretapping program violated civil liberties they sent their lawyers to argue that they should be able to listen to celluar calls and collect geographic data from them without warrants.They also had the Vice President saying the Iraq was going to be one of the administration's great accomplishments, while they continue to claim they inherited the economic problems.
Its plain to any thinking person that lots more economic policy changes have been enacted under the current administration than mission changes in Iraq and that even if some of the measures are working they have not had the effects that were advertised.
I can sound positions giving Obama credit for both or neither but I really can't how he can take credit for one and not the other.
It looks like a outrageous attempt to be responsible for the successes and continue to blame Bush for the failures.At least the Neo-Con crowd consistently denies the same realities.
Deficits don't matter, You're with us or your Against us, Evolution, etc, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117412</id>
	<title>Re:How bad could it be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266008160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>George W. Bush was born <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George\_W.\_Bush#Childhood\_to\_mid-life" title="wikipedia.org">in Connecticut</a> [wikipedia.org]. Although he went to elementary school in Texas, his high-school years were spent in Massachusetts. He then went to study in Yale and, interestingly, had a slightly <a href="http://sunnyeside.blogspot.com/2005/06/kerrys-academic-record-worse-that.html" title="blogspot.com">better GPA</a> [blogspot.com], than John Kerry &mdash; his opponent during 2004 elections, who kept his academic record hidden, while his followers mocked Bush's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>George W. Bush was born in Connecticut [ wikipedia.org ] .
Although he went to elementary school in Texas , his high-school years were spent in Massachusetts .
He then went to study in Yale and , interestingly , had a slightly better GPA [ blogspot.com ] , than John Kerry    his opponent during 2004 elections , who kept his academic record hidden , while his followers mocked Bush 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>George W. Bush was born in Connecticut [wikipedia.org].
Although he went to elementary school in Texas, his high-school years were spent in Massachusetts.
He then went to study in Yale and, interestingly, had a slightly better GPA [blogspot.com], than John Kerry — his opponent during 2004 elections, who kept his academic record hidden, while his followers mocked Bush's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31124520</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>Chowderbags</author>
	<datestamp>1265998260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A school saying nothing about the existence of any particular god is <i>not</i> the same thing as state sponsored atheism. If schools started to specifically say "there's no such thing as god", then that would be supporting atheism. Can schools walk a fine line and run a comparative religion or even a Bible from a historical perspective class? Sure, provided it's neutral and doesn't proselytize. Then again, it'd get beset on all sides, from fundamentalists who don't want the Bible taught as anything but the absolute immutable word of god, or from hardcore atheists who don't want their kids taught fairy tales. Do I think a class that actually took a fair, open, and honest look at religions might be worthwhile? Sure. Do I think such a class could exist in every school in America without issues? Hell no</htmltext>
<tokenext>A school saying nothing about the existence of any particular god is not the same thing as state sponsored atheism .
If schools started to specifically say " there 's no such thing as god " , then that would be supporting atheism .
Can schools walk a fine line and run a comparative religion or even a Bible from a historical perspective class ?
Sure , provided it 's neutral and does n't proselytize .
Then again , it 'd get beset on all sides , from fundamentalists who do n't want the Bible taught as anything but the absolute immutable word of god , or from hardcore atheists who do n't want their kids taught fairy tales .
Do I think a class that actually took a fair , open , and honest look at religions might be worthwhile ?
Sure. Do I think such a class could exist in every school in America without issues ?
Hell no</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A school saying nothing about the existence of any particular god is not the same thing as state sponsored atheism.
If schools started to specifically say "there's no such thing as god", then that would be supporting atheism.
Can schools walk a fine line and run a comparative religion or even a Bible from a historical perspective class?
Sure, provided it's neutral and doesn't proselytize.
Then again, it'd get beset on all sides, from fundamentalists who don't want the Bible taught as anything but the absolute immutable word of god, or from hardcore atheists who don't want their kids taught fairy tales.
Do I think a class that actually took a fair, open, and honest look at religions might be worthwhile?
Sure. Do I think such a class could exist in every school in America without issues?
Hell no</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118734</id>
	<title>Re:How bad could it be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265968440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're right.  It takes a half-white Illinois politician to really fuck things up!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right .
It takes a half-white Illinois politician to really fuck things up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right.
It takes a half-white Illinois politician to really fuck things up!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117684</id>
	<title>No Duh</title>
	<author>gd2shoe</author>
	<datestamp>1265965740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The leaders of these efforts outright admit they are attempting to redefine the way our children understand the political landscape so that, when they grow up, they will have preconceived notions of the American political system that favor their evangelical Christian goals.</p></div><p>Children grow up with preconceived notions.  School leaders try to impress their values on the children in their care.  This happens <em>everywhere</em>.  The socialists, the group-responsibility, and the teach-to-the-lowest-denominator-so-no-child-can-fail groups have been at work in California for some time.  Texas isn't the only state that "leads" in education, so I'm told.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The leaders of these efforts outright admit they are attempting to redefine the way our children understand the political landscape so that , when they grow up , they will have preconceived notions of the American political system that favor their evangelical Christian goals.Children grow up with preconceived notions .
School leaders try to impress their values on the children in their care .
This happens everywhere .
The socialists , the group-responsibility , and the teach-to-the-lowest-denominator-so-no-child-can-fail groups have been at work in California for some time .
Texas is n't the only state that " leads " in education , so I 'm told .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The leaders of these efforts outright admit they are attempting to redefine the way our children understand the political landscape so that, when they grow up, they will have preconceived notions of the American political system that favor their evangelical Christian goals.Children grow up with preconceived notions.
School leaders try to impress their values on the children in their care.
This happens everywhere.
The socialists, the group-responsibility, and the teach-to-the-lowest-denominator-so-no-child-can-fail groups have been at work in California for some time.
Texas isn't the only state that "leads" in education, so I'm told.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121126</id>
	<title>Not so fast</title>
	<author>jwietelmann</author>
	<datestamp>1265975400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In some ways, the internet merely makes confirmation bias even more pervasive.  With my mouse clicks, I can easily shop around to find whatever source of information comforts me in my already-held beliefs.  For example, read the comments sections at Fox News or Huffington Post, both information sources known for having an ideological slant.  (I cannot be held responsible if your brain explodes.)  People who can't handle having their worldviews challenged will seek out the source that challenges them the least.  The internet makes that task very, very easy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In some ways , the internet merely makes confirmation bias even more pervasive .
With my mouse clicks , I can easily shop around to find whatever source of information comforts me in my already-held beliefs .
For example , read the comments sections at Fox News or Huffington Post , both information sources known for having an ideological slant .
( I can not be held responsible if your brain explodes .
) People who ca n't handle having their worldviews challenged will seek out the source that challenges them the least .
The internet makes that task very , very easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In some ways, the internet merely makes confirmation bias even more pervasive.
With my mouse clicks, I can easily shop around to find whatever source of information comforts me in my already-held beliefs.
For example, read the comments sections at Fox News or Huffington Post, both information sources known for having an ideological slant.
(I cannot be held responsible if your brain explodes.
)  People who can't handle having their worldviews challenged will seek out the source that challenges them the least.
The internet makes that task very, very easy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</id>
	<title>So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266008160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>

While the article is a bit biased as well as the people it covers, a lot of the things these people tout amount to plain ignorance.<p><div class="quote"><p>More elementally, they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p> </div><p>True.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... and according to biblical precepts.</p></div><p>False.  The founding fathers (especially Thomas Jefferson) read so much philosophy and ethics that The Christian Bible was one of a hundred sources.  One could easily argue that the nation was founded on principles of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois#Influence\_on\_the\_United\_States" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">the League of Five Nations</a> [wikipedia.org] as much as anything else.  Yes, the founding fathers most likely borrowed from heathen savages that populated a land where everyone went to hell before the Europeans got here.  <br> <br>

If the people in the article think the founding fathers didn't intend for a separation of church and state, let's <a href="http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html" title="loc.gov" rel="nofollow">visit what documentation we have</a> [loc.gov] from them:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Gentlemen<br> <br>

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, &amp; in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.<br> <br>

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man &amp; his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, &amp; not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," <b>thus building a wall of separation between Church &amp; State</b>. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.<br> <br>

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection &amp; blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves &amp; your religious association, assurances of my high respect &amp; esteem.<br> <br>

Th Jefferson<br>
Jan. 1. 1802.</p></div><p>All men and women are created equal.  Everyone has a right to practice what religion they so choose.  So keep your religious crap out of our public schools.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While the article is a bit biased as well as the people it covers , a lot of the things these people tout amount to plain ignorance.More elementally , they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians ... True. ... and according to biblical precepts.False .
The founding fathers ( especially Thomas Jefferson ) read so much philosophy and ethics that The Christian Bible was one of a hundred sources .
One could easily argue that the nation was founded on principles of the League of Five Nations [ wikipedia.org ] as much as anything else .
Yes , the founding fathers most likely borrowed from heathen savages that populated a land where everyone went to hell before the Europeans got here .
If the people in the article think the founding fathers did n't intend for a separation of church and state , let 's visit what documentation we have [ loc.gov ] from them : Gentlemen The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me , on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association , give me the highest satisfaction .
my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents , &amp; in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties , the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing .
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man &amp; his God , that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship , that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only , &amp; not opinions , I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should " make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof , " thus building a wall of separation between Church &amp; State .
Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience , I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights , convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties .
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection &amp; blessing of the common father and creator of man , and tender you for yourselves &amp; your religious association , assurances of my high respect &amp; esteem .
Th Jefferson Jan. 1. 1802.All men and women are created equal .
Everyone has a right to practice what religion they so choose .
So keep your religious crap out of our public schools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

While the article is a bit biased as well as the people it covers, a lot of the things these people tout amount to plain ignorance.More elementally, they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians ... True. ... and according to biblical precepts.False.
The founding fathers (especially Thomas Jefferson) read so much philosophy and ethics that The Christian Bible was one of a hundred sources.
One could easily argue that the nation was founded on principles of the League of Five Nations [wikipedia.org] as much as anything else.
Yes, the founding fathers most likely borrowed from heathen savages that populated a land where everyone went to hell before the Europeans got here.
If the people in the article think the founding fathers didn't intend for a separation of church and state, let's visit what documentation we have [loc.gov] from them:Gentlemen 

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction.
my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, &amp; in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man &amp; his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, &amp; not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church &amp; State.
Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection &amp; blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves &amp; your religious association, assurances of my high respect &amp; esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.All men and women are created equal.
Everyone has a right to practice what religion they so choose.
So keep your religious crap out of our public schools.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31123830</id>
	<title>Re:How bad could it be?</title>
	<author>jackbird</author>
	<datestamp>1265990940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about LBJ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about LBJ ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about LBJ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117320</id>
	<title>Anathem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266007860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being 700 pages in, and it's disturbing how much alike this sounds to the "collapse" state of civilization in the book. Stop looking into the future Stephenson, your scaring me!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being 700 pages in , and it 's disturbing how much alike this sounds to the " collapse " state of civilization in the book .
Stop looking into the future Stephenson , your scaring me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being 700 pages in, and it's disturbing how much alike this sounds to the "collapse" state of civilization in the book.
Stop looking into the future Stephenson, your scaring me!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117716</id>
	<title>Re:Afraid of Creationism?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265965800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Has anyone here witnessed evolution? </p></div><p>Yes. You can, too. Get a microscope, a bacterial culture and a toxin. Apply moderate levels of the toxin to slowly kill off the bacteria that can't resist it. Over a few generations, all bacteria will be resistant. That's evolution.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Can't evolution hold up against creationism?  If so, let creationism be heard.  If not, get rid of evolution.</p></div><p>It can, and it does. More to the point, there is not one measly scrap of evidence for any form of creationism. Not the biblic creationism, not the Hindu creationism, not the Eskimo creationism and not any other. All the different religious creation stories combined have exactly as much evidence for them as the theory I just made up about our Universe being embedded in a hexa-dimensional privy in some supernatural public restroom.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone here witnessed evolution ?
Yes. You can , too .
Get a microscope , a bacterial culture and a toxin .
Apply moderate levels of the toxin to slowly kill off the bacteria that ca n't resist it .
Over a few generations , all bacteria will be resistant .
That 's evolution.Ca n't evolution hold up against creationism ?
If so , let creationism be heard .
If not , get rid of evolution.It can , and it does .
More to the point , there is not one measly scrap of evidence for any form of creationism .
Not the biblic creationism , not the Hindu creationism , not the Eskimo creationism and not any other .
All the different religious creation stories combined have exactly as much evidence for them as the theory I just made up about our Universe being embedded in a hexa-dimensional privy in some supernatural public restroom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone here witnessed evolution?
Yes. You can, too.
Get a microscope, a bacterial culture and a toxin.
Apply moderate levels of the toxin to slowly kill off the bacteria that can't resist it.
Over a few generations, all bacteria will be resistant.
That's evolution.Can't evolution hold up against creationism?
If so, let creationism be heard.
If not, get rid of evolution.It can, and it does.
More to the point, there is not one measly scrap of evidence for any form of creationism.
Not the biblic creationism, not the Hindu creationism, not the Eskimo creationism and not any other.
All the different religious creation stories combined have exactly as much evidence for them as the theory I just made up about our Universe being embedded in a hexa-dimensional privy in some supernatural public restroom.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121738</id>
	<title>Re:Afraid of Creationism?</title>
	<author>elronxenu</author>
	<datestamp>1265978220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I never saw so many straw-men arguments in one post. Mod up Funny, please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never saw so many straw-men arguments in one post .
Mod up Funny , please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I never saw so many straw-men arguments in one post.
Mod up Funny, please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118890</id>
	<title>Re:The irony is this...</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1265968800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The founding fathers were libertarians.</p></div><p>Libertarians, or proponents of a loose federation over a single monolithic nation-state?</p><p>Did the Founding Fathers object to far-reaching exercise of <em>State</em> power?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The founding fathers were libertarians.Libertarians , or proponents of a loose federation over a single monolithic nation-state ? Did the Founding Fathers object to far-reaching exercise of State power ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The founding fathers were libertarians.Libertarians, or proponents of a loose federation over a single monolithic nation-state?Did the Founding Fathers object to far-reaching exercise of State power?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118994</id>
	<title>Re:Lies my Teacher Told Me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265969040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Devil's advocate: they always existed, we just never noticed them. They aren't changing or adapting, we're just altering the ratio of non-resistant to resistant strains. Overpopulation isn't evolution. Same principle would be to go into a town and shoot everyone of Negro descent. Oh look, now everyone's white there. Does that mean the Negros evolved into whites? Or, go in and shoot all the Caucasians, all the blue eyed persons, all the women, etc.</p><p>Thus, all we are doing is exterminating particular strains, destroying God's creatures. This blasphemy needs to stop now! He created everything for a purpose, man has no right to alter his creation!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Devil 's advocate : they always existed , we just never noticed them .
They are n't changing or adapting , we 're just altering the ratio of non-resistant to resistant strains .
Overpopulation is n't evolution .
Same principle would be to go into a town and shoot everyone of Negro descent .
Oh look , now everyone 's white there .
Does that mean the Negros evolved into whites ?
Or , go in and shoot all the Caucasians , all the blue eyed persons , all the women , etc.Thus , all we are doing is exterminating particular strains , destroying God 's creatures .
This blasphemy needs to stop now !
He created everything for a purpose , man has no right to alter his creation !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Devil's advocate: they always existed, we just never noticed them.
They aren't changing or adapting, we're just altering the ratio of non-resistant to resistant strains.
Overpopulation isn't evolution.
Same principle would be to go into a town and shoot everyone of Negro descent.
Oh look, now everyone's white there.
Does that mean the Negros evolved into whites?
Or, go in and shoot all the Caucasians, all the blue eyed persons, all the women, etc.Thus, all we are doing is exterminating particular strains, destroying God's creatures.
This blasphemy needs to stop now!
He created everything for a purpose, man has no right to alter his creation!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117956</id>
	<title>Re:How bad could it be?</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1265966520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but he's still the crappiest president of my lifetime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but he 's still the crappiest president of my lifetime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but he's still the crappiest president of my lifetime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119216</id>
	<title>Re:Lies my Teacher Told Me...</title>
	<author>Danse</author>
	<datestamp>1265969580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is amazing the damage that a few phuqtards with ignorant beliefs can have. I always shake may head in amazement at the evolutionary naysayers. I have found that asking them how antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria have come about so quickly usually shuts them up.</p></div><p>You must have encountered some remarkably reasonable creationists.  That same argument would often get a response more along the lines of, "But they're still bacteria!  They didn't evolve into a goldfish or anything, so evolution is wrong!"  Try getting people like that to understand the first thing about science.  I think it'd be rather less painful to just have my head slammed in a car door repeatedly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is amazing the damage that a few phuqtards with ignorant beliefs can have .
I always shake may head in amazement at the evolutionary naysayers .
I have found that asking them how antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria have come about so quickly usually shuts them up.You must have encountered some remarkably reasonable creationists .
That same argument would often get a response more along the lines of , " But they 're still bacteria !
They did n't evolve into a goldfish or anything , so evolution is wrong !
" Try getting people like that to understand the first thing about science .
I think it 'd be rather less painful to just have my head slammed in a car door repeatedly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is amazing the damage that a few phuqtards with ignorant beliefs can have.
I always shake may head in amazement at the evolutionary naysayers.
I have found that asking them how antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria have come about so quickly usually shuts them up.You must have encountered some remarkably reasonable creationists.
That same argument would often get a response more along the lines of, "But they're still bacteria!
They didn't evolve into a goldfish or anything, so evolution is wrong!
"  Try getting people like that to understand the first thing about science.
I think it'd be rather less painful to just have my head slammed in a car door repeatedly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117558</id>
	<title>Yet another reason...</title>
	<author>ground.zero.612</author>
	<datestamp>1265965380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that "We the People..." should take up arms against those who would destroy us from the inside. It is not only my right; my responsibility; it's my obligation to my fellow countrymen, and future generations of US Americans.</p><p>I happen to believe in God. However, I respect, and understand the reasons for keeping God out of education (one exception I would make is for private schools, which are opt-in).</p><p>History is history because it took place in the past. The past is unchangeable, and thus, re-writing history is the same as lying. In this case I would call the people re-writing the history of our once great country's politics one thing: tyrannical. Their motivations are clearly oppressive.</p><p>Everyone in the US should know that it's completely legal to kill tyrants. Everyone should know that it's their responsibility. The more we let the tyrants do this to us, the less we deserve the rights to freedom and liberty that they are stealing from us.</p><p>

You can have my guns, my freedom, my rights, and my liberty AFTER you pry them from my cold, dead hands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that " We the People... " should take up arms against those who would destroy us from the inside .
It is not only my right ; my responsibility ; it 's my obligation to my fellow countrymen , and future generations of US Americans.I happen to believe in God .
However , I respect , and understand the reasons for keeping God out of education ( one exception I would make is for private schools , which are opt-in ) .History is history because it took place in the past .
The past is unchangeable , and thus , re-writing history is the same as lying .
In this case I would call the people re-writing the history of our once great country 's politics one thing : tyrannical .
Their motivations are clearly oppressive.Everyone in the US should know that it 's completely legal to kill tyrants .
Everyone should know that it 's their responsibility .
The more we let the tyrants do this to us , the less we deserve the rights to freedom and liberty that they are stealing from us .
You can have my guns , my freedom , my rights , and my liberty AFTER you pry them from my cold , dead hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that "We the People..." should take up arms against those who would destroy us from the inside.
It is not only my right; my responsibility; it's my obligation to my fellow countrymen, and future generations of US Americans.I happen to believe in God.
However, I respect, and understand the reasons for keeping God out of education (one exception I would make is for private schools, which are opt-in).History is history because it took place in the past.
The past is unchangeable, and thus, re-writing history is the same as lying.
In this case I would call the people re-writing the history of our once great country's politics one thing: tyrannical.
Their motivations are clearly oppressive.Everyone in the US should know that it's completely legal to kill tyrants.
Everyone should know that it's their responsibility.
The more we let the tyrants do this to us, the less we deserve the rights to freedom and liberty that they are stealing from us.
You can have my guns, my freedom, my rights, and my liberty AFTER you pry them from my cold, dead hands.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119350</id>
	<title>Re:Does curriculum matter anymore in the Google Ag</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1265970000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But what if your religion is Bing?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But what if your religion is Bing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what if your religion is Bing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117298</id>
	<title>Well, 'fair dos' to them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266007740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whilst I personally do not agree with their standpoint, at least they are mounting a vigorous, forward-looking defense of their beliefs.<br>No worse than state-sponsored Madrassas in Pakistan and elsewhere.<br>It's up to the rest of society to fight their corner equally well, in the interests of balance; unfortunately only the fanatics seem to have the energy to do this...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whilst I personally do not agree with their standpoint , at least they are mounting a vigorous , forward-looking defense of their beliefs.No worse than state-sponsored Madrassas in Pakistan and elsewhere.It 's up to the rest of society to fight their corner equally well , in the interests of balance ; unfortunately only the fanatics seem to have the energy to do this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whilst I personally do not agree with their standpoint, at least they are mounting a vigorous, forward-looking defense of their beliefs.No worse than state-sponsored Madrassas in Pakistan and elsewhere.It's up to the rest of society to fight their corner equally well, in the interests of balance; unfortunately only the fanatics seem to have the energy to do this...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117364</id>
	<title>That's just one problem with American education</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266007980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have a system where education consumers have little or no control. Where we get dictated to by the system rather than make demands of it. And funded with an abominable property tax that makes renters of us all and leads to all kinds of eminent domain abuse and doesn't do anything for the poor sods that have the misfortune of living in a crappy neighborhood.</p><p>And the social engineering on the left is equally scary.</p><p>In general the schools seem great a preparing little johnny for state worshiping a zero-tolerance surveillance state and teaching a decidedly post-new deal version of constitutional rights.</p><p>The sad fact is the whole thing is fucked. Fucked on the left. Fucked on the right. Fucked by design.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have a system where education consumers have little or no control .
Where we get dictated to by the system rather than make demands of it .
And funded with an abominable property tax that makes renters of us all and leads to all kinds of eminent domain abuse and does n't do anything for the poor sods that have the misfortune of living in a crappy neighborhood.And the social engineering on the left is equally scary.In general the schools seem great a preparing little johnny for state worshiping a zero-tolerance surveillance state and teaching a decidedly post-new deal version of constitutional rights.The sad fact is the whole thing is fucked .
Fucked on the left .
Fucked on the right .
Fucked by design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have a system where education consumers have little or no control.
Where we get dictated to by the system rather than make demands of it.
And funded with an abominable property tax that makes renters of us all and leads to all kinds of eminent domain abuse and doesn't do anything for the poor sods that have the misfortune of living in a crappy neighborhood.And the social engineering on the left is equally scary.In general the schools seem great a preparing little johnny for state worshiping a zero-tolerance surveillance state and teaching a decidedly post-new deal version of constitutional rights.The sad fact is the whole thing is fucked.
Fucked on the left.
Fucked on the right.
Fucked by design.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31123008</id>
	<title>Re:How bad could it be?</title>
	<author>fiannaFailMan</author>
	<datestamp>1265984460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>George W. Bush spent most of his academic career in private schools in New England.</p></div><p>....drinking.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>George W. Bush spent most of his academic career in private schools in New England.....drinking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>George W. Bush spent most of his academic career in private schools in New England.....drinking.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218</id>
	<title>How bad could it be?</title>
	<author>Mechagodzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1266007440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much damage could a poorly educated man from Texas actually cause? It's not like he could become President or something...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much damage could a poorly educated man from Texas actually cause ?
It 's not like he could become President or something.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much damage could a poorly educated man from Texas actually cause?
It's not like he could become President or something...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31123568</id>
	<title>Re:People weren't aware of this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265988600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I knew this and am not even American. Every piece of coverage I've seen on this issue has explained how wide reaching the ramifications are. How can anyone have missed it?</i> </p><p>There's more to it than just Texas -- California weighs in as well. Basically there are views of the center of the country and views of the coasts.Textbook publishers have learned to walk the tightrope between the two.</p><p>Some years ago, I read an extended article on the situation, possibly in the New Yorker or Atlantic.</p><p>The gist of the article was that the Bible belt had demands to be met -- no magic, sorcery, anything deemed less than Christian.</p><p>The coasts, OTOH, insist on political correctness. This includes a number of things -- diversity without difference among all people -- no stereotypes, favorable or otherwise -- different complexions, but no "studious Asians" or "Latinos in tricked-out cars" -- women  may not be "just" mothers, housewives, nurses or secretaries -- they must be primarily professionals (doctors, managers, businesswomen) -- older people must not use walkers, crutches, wheelchairs or assistive devices beyond eyeglasses.</p><p>CA and TX are the two largest textbook markets -- if you lose either, you're doomed. The two sides fought the wars years ago, with numerous lawsuits and rejections. The publishers learned their lesson, so just the background threat of rejection keeps them on the straight and narrow.</p><p>As an aside, there were only about half a dozen competitive publishers. A couple dropped out or merged and two or three of th remainder are now based in Europe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I knew this and am not even American .
Every piece of coverage I 've seen on this issue has explained how wide reaching the ramifications are .
How can anyone have missed it ?
There 's more to it than just Texas -- California weighs in as well .
Basically there are views of the center of the country and views of the coasts.Textbook publishers have learned to walk the tightrope between the two.Some years ago , I read an extended article on the situation , possibly in the New Yorker or Atlantic.The gist of the article was that the Bible belt had demands to be met -- no magic , sorcery , anything deemed less than Christian.The coasts , OTOH , insist on political correctness .
This includes a number of things -- diversity without difference among all people -- no stereotypes , favorable or otherwise -- different complexions , but no " studious Asians " or " Latinos in tricked-out cars " -- women may not be " just " mothers , housewives , nurses or secretaries -- they must be primarily professionals ( doctors , managers , businesswomen ) -- older people must not use walkers , crutches , wheelchairs or assistive devices beyond eyeglasses.CA and TX are the two largest textbook markets -- if you lose either , you 're doomed .
The two sides fought the wars years ago , with numerous lawsuits and rejections .
The publishers learned their lesson , so just the background threat of rejection keeps them on the straight and narrow.As an aside , there were only about half a dozen competitive publishers .
A couple dropped out or merged and two or three of th remainder are now based in Europe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I knew this and am not even American.
Every piece of coverage I've seen on this issue has explained how wide reaching the ramifications are.
How can anyone have missed it?
There's more to it than just Texas -- California weighs in as well.
Basically there are views of the center of the country and views of the coasts.Textbook publishers have learned to walk the tightrope between the two.Some years ago, I read an extended article on the situation, possibly in the New Yorker or Atlantic.The gist of the article was that the Bible belt had demands to be met -- no magic, sorcery, anything deemed less than Christian.The coasts, OTOH, insist on political correctness.
This includes a number of things -- diversity without difference among all people -- no stereotypes, favorable or otherwise -- different complexions, but no "studious Asians" or "Latinos in tricked-out cars" -- women  may not be "just" mothers, housewives, nurses or secretaries -- they must be primarily professionals (doctors, managers, businesswomen) -- older people must not use walkers, crutches, wheelchairs or assistive devices beyond eyeglasses.CA and TX are the two largest textbook markets -- if you lose either, you're doomed.
The two sides fought the wars years ago, with numerous lawsuits and rejections.
The publishers learned their lesson, so just the background threat of rejection keeps them on the straight and narrow.As an aside, there were only about half a dozen competitive publishers.
A couple dropped out or merged and two or three of th remainder are now based in Europe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31128272</id>
	<title>G!  WWJD?</title>
	<author>rickshaf</author>
	<datestamp>1266086520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please see subject.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please see subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please see subject.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119962</id>
	<title>Re:"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>Danse</author>
	<datestamp>1265971620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Many feel that the original intent of this amendment was to maintain a national defense by way of individual gun ownership, and that the right to bear arms implies the right to take your personal gun and join the militia when the nation is threatened. Having a personal right to go buy a fully automatic assault rifle and fire it off in your backyard isn't part of this amendment. There have been several instances of "judicial activism" which has expanded the meaning of this amendment over the centuries.</p></div><p>Judicial activism being any decision that doesn't match your own interpretation, of course.  I love how people rail against judicial activism, except when it goes their way.  Then it's just the courts being sensible.  There are many vague statements in the Constitution.  It behooves us to look deeper into the origin of these parts to see why they were added and what they were intended to do.  Unfortunately this is not always easy, as there was then, as now, much debate about a lot of it and much compromise as well.  Anyone suggesting that the Constitution is unambiguous is deluding themselves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many feel that the original intent of this amendment was to maintain a national defense by way of individual gun ownership , and that the right to bear arms implies the right to take your personal gun and join the militia when the nation is threatened .
Having a personal right to go buy a fully automatic assault rifle and fire it off in your backyard is n't part of this amendment .
There have been several instances of " judicial activism " which has expanded the meaning of this amendment over the centuries.Judicial activism being any decision that does n't match your own interpretation , of course .
I love how people rail against judicial activism , except when it goes their way .
Then it 's just the courts being sensible .
There are many vague statements in the Constitution .
It behooves us to look deeper into the origin of these parts to see why they were added and what they were intended to do .
Unfortunately this is not always easy , as there was then , as now , much debate about a lot of it and much compromise as well .
Anyone suggesting that the Constitution is unambiguous is deluding themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many feel that the original intent of this amendment was to maintain a national defense by way of individual gun ownership, and that the right to bear arms implies the right to take your personal gun and join the militia when the nation is threatened.
Having a personal right to go buy a fully automatic assault rifle and fire it off in your backyard isn't part of this amendment.
There have been several instances of "judicial activism" which has expanded the meaning of this amendment over the centuries.Judicial activism being any decision that doesn't match your own interpretation, of course.
I love how people rail against judicial activism, except when it goes their way.
Then it's just the courts being sensible.
There are many vague statements in the Constitution.
It behooves us to look deeper into the origin of these parts to see why they were added and what they were intended to do.
Unfortunately this is not always easy, as there was then, as now, much debate about a lot of it and much compromise as well.
Anyone suggesting that the Constitution is unambiguous is deluding themselves.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118842</id>
	<title>lightfire</title>
	<author>lightfire</author>
	<datestamp>1265968620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Constitution is not a "living" document!  It's a contract that cannot be changed without proper consent.  People have a right to religious freedom even if there views seem nutty.  They just don't have a right to impose their religious views on others.

Also, science neither discovers absolute truth(Godelian incompleteness) nor discovers truth absolutely(never have certainty) so it's founded on assumptions.  Truthfully, evolution isn't a fact; it's just as apparent as gravity.  So you could rationally deny evolution, but you'd have to deny gravity as we know it.  I also don't see how evolution contradicts the Scriptures.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Constitution is not a " living " document !
It 's a contract that can not be changed without proper consent .
People have a right to religious freedom even if there views seem nutty .
They just do n't have a right to impose their religious views on others .
Also , science neither discovers absolute truth ( Godelian incompleteness ) nor discovers truth absolutely ( never have certainty ) so it 's founded on assumptions .
Truthfully , evolution is n't a fact ; it 's just as apparent as gravity .
So you could rationally deny evolution , but you 'd have to deny gravity as we know it .
I also do n't see how evolution contradicts the Scriptures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Constitution is not a "living" document!
It's a contract that cannot be changed without proper consent.
People have a right to religious freedom even if there views seem nutty.
They just don't have a right to impose their religious views on others.
Also, science neither discovers absolute truth(Godelian incompleteness) nor discovers truth absolutely(never have certainty) so it's founded on assumptions.
Truthfully, evolution isn't a fact; it's just as apparent as gravity.
So you could rationally deny evolution, but you'd have to deny gravity as we know it.
I also don't see how evolution contradicts the Scriptures.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117454</id>
	<title>Re:How bad could it be?</title>
	<author>keithpreston</author>
	<datestamp>1266008280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As someone who did not attend Yale and Harvard, I'm glad we can agree those who graduated from those schools are poorly educated.    It sure makes my Alma mater look better!</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who did not attend Yale and Harvard , I 'm glad we can agree those who graduated from those schools are poorly educated .
It sure makes my Alma mater look better !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who did not attend Yale and Harvard, I'm glad we can agree those who graduated from those schools are poorly educated.
It sure makes my Alma mater look better!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31125950</id>
	<title>Re:Dominionism at play</title>
	<author>big\_paul76</author>
	<datestamp>1266064440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're confused by the "small government" creed of conservatives?</p><p>What about the fact that people who call themselves Christians vote right-wing? Christianity is, in it's texts, a very very left-leaning religion. From "love of money is the root of all evil" to "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven"  or "what you have done for the least of my brothers, you have done for me", the real thing to be confused about is why it is that Christians, at least in the USA, seem to think kicking people off welfare and blaming the victim is just what Jesus would've prescribed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're confused by the " small government " creed of conservatives ? What about the fact that people who call themselves Christians vote right-wing ?
Christianity is , in it 's texts , a very very left-leaning religion .
From " love of money is the root of all evil " to " easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven " or " what you have done for the least of my brothers , you have done for me " , the real thing to be confused about is why it is that Christians , at least in the USA , seem to think kicking people off welfare and blaming the victim is just what Jesus would 've prescribed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're confused by the "small government" creed of conservatives?What about the fact that people who call themselves Christians vote right-wing?
Christianity is, in it's texts, a very very left-leaning religion.
From "love of money is the root of all evil" to "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven"  or "what you have done for the least of my brothers, you have done for me", the real thing to be confused about is why it is that Christians, at least in the USA, seem to think kicking people off welfare and blaming the victim is just what Jesus would've prescribed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118046</id>
	<title>A note for Christians and Atheists</title>
	<author>Braille for Zombies</author>
	<datestamp>1265966820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, we should just do away with religion all together it worked out great for communist countries like the USSR, oh wait they don't exist anymore. Let's see, who still bans religion? China, North Korea and Cuba. Anyone live there and post on this website? I didn't think so, those countries have filtered or non-existent access to the web. Like it or not, the majority of the founding fathers of this country and those who wrote the Constitution were Christians. Should this relation be over-stated or exaggerated? Definitely not. Modern atheists who think, "people who believe in God or practice a religion are weak and ignorant" would like to see the correlation between Christianity and the founding of the United States erased from the history books. It takes more strength to believe in something you can't prove than to sit around and whine about how ignorant the rest of the world is. I wonder if that strength had anything to do with how the founding fathers fought an empire and founded a new country with religious freedoms for all (1st Amendment). You are free to believe in absolutely nothing and others are free to believe in anything they want. People on either side should NOT be allowed to re-write history in favor of their own personal views.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , we should just do away with religion all together it worked out great for communist countries like the USSR , oh wait they do n't exist anymore .
Let 's see , who still bans religion ?
China , North Korea and Cuba .
Anyone live there and post on this website ?
I did n't think so , those countries have filtered or non-existent access to the web .
Like it or not , the majority of the founding fathers of this country and those who wrote the Constitution were Christians .
Should this relation be over-stated or exaggerated ?
Definitely not .
Modern atheists who think , " people who believe in God or practice a religion are weak and ignorant " would like to see the correlation between Christianity and the founding of the United States erased from the history books .
It takes more strength to believe in something you ca n't prove than to sit around and whine about how ignorant the rest of the world is .
I wonder if that strength had anything to do with how the founding fathers fought an empire and founded a new country with religious freedoms for all ( 1st Amendment ) .
You are free to believe in absolutely nothing and others are free to believe in anything they want .
People on either side should NOT be allowed to re-write history in favor of their own personal views .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, we should just do away with religion all together it worked out great for communist countries like the USSR, oh wait they don't exist anymore.
Let's see, who still bans religion?
China, North Korea and Cuba.
Anyone live there and post on this website?
I didn't think so, those countries have filtered or non-existent access to the web.
Like it or not, the majority of the founding fathers of this country and those who wrote the Constitution were Christians.
Should this relation be over-stated or exaggerated?
Definitely not.
Modern atheists who think, "people who believe in God or practice a religion are weak and ignorant" would like to see the correlation between Christianity and the founding of the United States erased from the history books.
It takes more strength to believe in something you can't prove than to sit around and whine about how ignorant the rest of the world is.
I wonder if that strength had anything to do with how the founding fathers fought an empire and founded a new country with religious freedoms for all (1st Amendment).
You are free to believe in absolutely nothing and others are free to believe in anything they want.
People on either side should NOT be allowed to re-write history in favor of their own personal views.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122464</id>
	<title>Our Constitution</title>
	<author>myranelson</author>
	<datestamp>1265981460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What seems to be forgotten in all this is:

The Constitution of the United States lays out a country "Of the people, by the people, and for the people", not "Of the church, by the church, and for the Church". We the people need to remember that and enforce it. Our constitution dictates a "separation of church and state".

That is the basic thing the tenet trying to be rewritten or overturned in all the battles with creationist or any others who want to force religious laws on the United States. The wish to create a theocracy rather than a democracy.

Yes the United States was formed "under God" but not "of God and of the church". It doesn't change anything. We are not a theocracy but a democracy, at least technically.

I live in Texas and this whole incident is embarrassing to say the least.

Several years back, when the fundamental religionist were having trouble electing people to higher offices the stated their goal was to quietly elect people to local governments, school boards, and the like. This would give them a foothold to influence policy at the local level, then move on to the state level. Onward and Upward as the Kansas state motto says. This isn't just a Texas issue, it hit in Pennsylvania and Kansas first. Look around your local and state school boards and check the back ground of those who have been elected, then decide to do something about it. Campaign and vote for candidates who will uphold our Constituiton and the separation of church and state, not subvert it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What seems to be forgotten in all this is : The Constitution of the United States lays out a country " Of the people , by the people , and for the people " , not " Of the church , by the church , and for the Church " .
We the people need to remember that and enforce it .
Our constitution dictates a " separation of church and state " .
That is the basic thing the tenet trying to be rewritten or overturned in all the battles with creationist or any others who want to force religious laws on the United States .
The wish to create a theocracy rather than a democracy .
Yes the United States was formed " under God " but not " of God and of the church " .
It does n't change anything .
We are not a theocracy but a democracy , at least technically .
I live in Texas and this whole incident is embarrassing to say the least .
Several years back , when the fundamental religionist were having trouble electing people to higher offices the stated their goal was to quietly elect people to local governments , school boards , and the like .
This would give them a foothold to influence policy at the local level , then move on to the state level .
Onward and Upward as the Kansas state motto says .
This is n't just a Texas issue , it hit in Pennsylvania and Kansas first .
Look around your local and state school boards and check the back ground of those who have been elected , then decide to do something about it .
Campaign and vote for candidates who will uphold our Constituiton and the separation of church and state , not subvert it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What seems to be forgotten in all this is:

The Constitution of the United States lays out a country "Of the people, by the people, and for the people", not "Of the church, by the church, and for the Church".
We the people need to remember that and enforce it.
Our constitution dictates a "separation of church and state".
That is the basic thing the tenet trying to be rewritten or overturned in all the battles with creationist or any others who want to force religious laws on the United States.
The wish to create a theocracy rather than a democracy.
Yes the United States was formed "under God" but not "of God and of the church".
It doesn't change anything.
We are not a theocracy but a democracy, at least technically.
I live in Texas and this whole incident is embarrassing to say the least.
Several years back, when the fundamental religionist were having trouble electing people to higher offices the stated their goal was to quietly elect people to local governments, school boards, and the like.
This would give them a foothold to influence policy at the local level, then move on to the state level.
Onward and Upward as the Kansas state motto says.
This isn't just a Texas issue, it hit in Pennsylvania and Kansas first.
Look around your local and state school boards and check the back ground of those who have been elected, then decide to do something about it.
Campaign and vote for candidates who will uphold our Constituiton and the separation of church and state, not subvert it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122918</id>
	<title>Re:People weren't aware of this?</title>
	<author>civilizedINTENSITY</author>
	<datestamp>1265983860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The Constitution is not "alive" in the sense most people use it, where the words have no meaning and the Congress ignores what it says, such that the Constitution might as well not even exist."<br> <br>I've never met anyone who seemed to suggest that the Constitution being a "living document" meant that the words have no meaning.  I think you are setting up a straw man argument.  Aware that its not possible to codify laws in one context that would work in all possible contexts, the Constitution is fluid rather than fixed.  The Constitution was designed to evolve.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Constitution is not " alive " in the sense most people use it , where the words have no meaning and the Congress ignores what it says , such that the Constitution might as well not even exist .
" I 've never met anyone who seemed to suggest that the Constitution being a " living document " meant that the words have no meaning .
I think you are setting up a straw man argument .
Aware that its not possible to codify laws in one context that would work in all possible contexts , the Constitution is fluid rather than fixed .
The Constitution was designed to evolve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Constitution is not "alive" in the sense most people use it, where the words have no meaning and the Congress ignores what it says, such that the Constitution might as well not even exist.
" I've never met anyone who seemed to suggest that the Constitution being a "living document" meant that the words have no meaning.
I think you are setting up a straw man argument.
Aware that its not possible to codify laws in one context that would work in all possible contexts, the Constitution is fluid rather than fixed.
The Constitution was designed to evolve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119422</id>
	<title>Mod entire summary as troll please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265970240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The entire summary (of course I didn't even click on the article) is simply opinionated flamebait.  Mod entire post as trolling flamebait and move on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The entire summary ( of course I did n't even click on the article ) is simply opinionated flamebait .
Mod entire post as trolling flamebait and move on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entire summary (of course I didn't even click on the article) is simply opinionated flamebait.
Mod entire post as trolling flamebait and move on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120670</id>
	<title>Re:How bad could it be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265973840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GWB spent nearly all of his childhood in Texas - unless you're a fundamentalist about such things, he's a Texan.</p><p>And anyway, you don't have to be born somewhere to be from that somewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GWB spent nearly all of his childhood in Texas - unless you 're a fundamentalist about such things , he 's a Texan.And anyway , you do n't have to be born somewhere to be from that somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GWB spent nearly all of his childhood in Texas - unless you're a fundamentalist about such things, he's a Texan.And anyway, you don't have to be born somewhere to be from that somewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121230</id>
	<title>Re:People weren't aware of this?</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1265975820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How can anyone have missed it?</i></p><p>Americans aren't known for their introspection. Too busy blaming all their problems on somebody else..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can anyone have missed it ? Americans are n't known for their introspection .
Too busy blaming all their problems on somebody else. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can anyone have missed it?Americans aren't known for their introspection.
Too busy blaming all their problems on somebody else..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118110</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265966880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do ignorant people that one statement by Jefferson and try to make it stand on it's own completely out of context to prove all our founders hated religion.  You really should read the other thousands of letters and documents Jefferson wrote to understand the situation.    Understand history before you try to change it you fucking retard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do ignorant people that one statement by Jefferson and try to make it stand on it 's own completely out of context to prove all our founders hated religion .
You really should read the other thousands of letters and documents Jefferson wrote to understand the situation .
Understand history before you try to change it you fucking retard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do ignorant people that one statement by Jefferson and try to make it stand on it's own completely out of context to prove all our founders hated religion.
You really should read the other thousands of letters and documents Jefferson wrote to understand the situation.
Understand history before you try to change it you fucking retard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118056</id>
	<title>Re:Well, 'fair dos' to them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265966820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, the point is that our country is explicitly supposed to be secular. They are mounting a vigorous, forward-looking OFFENSE, not defense. Moreover, a point of view is not more right because people are more adamant, that's just silly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , the point is that our country is explicitly supposed to be secular .
They are mounting a vigorous , forward-looking OFFENSE , not defense .
Moreover , a point of view is not more right because people are more adamant , that 's just silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, the point is that our country is explicitly supposed to be secular.
They are mounting a vigorous, forward-looking OFFENSE, not defense.
Moreover, a point of view is not more right because people are more adamant, that's just silly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117822</id>
	<title>Nothing new here</title>
	<author>withoutfeathers</author>
	<datestamp>1265966100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My academic exposure to "special creation" versus "darwinism" goes back to the early sixties.  The most significant aspect of my experience was that I never saw anyone persuaded one way or the other by discussion of either in a classroom -- and back in those days, it was perfectly acceptable to discuss God in a science class.

People who believed in special creation stuck with it and people who believed otherwise stuck with it regardless of the evidence or arguments presented by the other side.  Why would anyone on either side have the least fear of having the other side presented?

If you truly believe (as I do) that the observable universe came into existence some 13 to 15 billion years ago and, as a consequence, the earth came into existence roughly 4.5 BYA followed by the natural evolution of life you should also be confident enough to listen to the contrary without fear that it will, in any way, corrupt or overtake the "truth."

By the way: I also happen to believe that God initiated the whole thing and got it exactly right the first time, thereby needing no subsequent tweeking or fiddling to move things along.  And if I hadn't told you that, you would have no way of distinguishing me from an orthodox, secular, believer in science.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My academic exposure to " special creation " versus " darwinism " goes back to the early sixties .
The most significant aspect of my experience was that I never saw anyone persuaded one way or the other by discussion of either in a classroom -- and back in those days , it was perfectly acceptable to discuss God in a science class .
People who believed in special creation stuck with it and people who believed otherwise stuck with it regardless of the evidence or arguments presented by the other side .
Why would anyone on either side have the least fear of having the other side presented ?
If you truly believe ( as I do ) that the observable universe came into existence some 13 to 15 billion years ago and , as a consequence , the earth came into existence roughly 4.5 BYA followed by the natural evolution of life you should also be confident enough to listen to the contrary without fear that it will , in any way , corrupt or overtake the " truth .
" By the way : I also happen to believe that God initiated the whole thing and got it exactly right the first time , thereby needing no subsequent tweeking or fiddling to move things along .
And if I had n't told you that , you would have no way of distinguishing me from an orthodox , secular , believer in science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My academic exposure to "special creation" versus "darwinism" goes back to the early sixties.
The most significant aspect of my experience was that I never saw anyone persuaded one way or the other by discussion of either in a classroom -- and back in those days, it was perfectly acceptable to discuss God in a science class.
People who believed in special creation stuck with it and people who believed otherwise stuck with it regardless of the evidence or arguments presented by the other side.
Why would anyone on either side have the least fear of having the other side presented?
If you truly believe (as I do) that the observable universe came into existence some 13 to 15 billion years ago and, as a consequence, the earth came into existence roughly 4.5 BYA followed by the natural evolution of life you should also be confident enough to listen to the contrary without fear that it will, in any way, corrupt or overtake the "truth.
"

By the way: I also happen to believe that God initiated the whole thing and got it exactly right the first time, thereby needing no subsequent tweeking or fiddling to move things along.
And if I hadn't told you that, you would have no way of distinguishing me from an orthodox, secular, believer in science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121346</id>
	<title>Re:"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265976360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And many like yourself who try to remove its meaning.</p><p>As a member of a family who has letters from the founding fathers copies have been made available and the originals are on display at various locations about the country. I have a very strong interest and investment in the meaning of the founding fathers terminology.Honestly I think that the shrinking rights on the second amendment simply means that the country is ready to give up and let others take control of it. At this point I am almost willing to let it go but I will fight tooth and nail still to retain all 10 of the rights fought for by the founding fathers. Weaken one and you might as well remove them all. There is a clear and simple way to change the constitution and it has been used several times, if you wish to disarm the USA pass a Amendment if you can otherwise stop infringing on any of the citizens rights.</p><p>A concerned patriot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And many like yourself who try to remove its meaning.As a member of a family who has letters from the founding fathers copies have been made available and the originals are on display at various locations about the country .
I have a very strong interest and investment in the meaning of the founding fathers terminology.Honestly I think that the shrinking rights on the second amendment simply means that the country is ready to give up and let others take control of it .
At this point I am almost willing to let it go but I will fight tooth and nail still to retain all 10 of the rights fought for by the founding fathers .
Weaken one and you might as well remove them all .
There is a clear and simple way to change the constitution and it has been used several times , if you wish to disarm the USA pass a Amendment if you can otherwise stop infringing on any of the citizens rights.A concerned patriot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And many like yourself who try to remove its meaning.As a member of a family who has letters from the founding fathers copies have been made available and the originals are on display at various locations about the country.
I have a very strong interest and investment in the meaning of the founding fathers terminology.Honestly I think that the shrinking rights on the second amendment simply means that the country is ready to give up and let others take control of it.
At this point I am almost willing to let it go but I will fight tooth and nail still to retain all 10 of the rights fought for by the founding fathers.
Weaken one and you might as well remove them all.
There is a clear and simple way to change the constitution and it has been used several times, if you wish to disarm the USA pass a Amendment if you can otherwise stop infringing on any of the citizens rights.A concerned patriot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117498</id>
	<title>Second millennium Muslim civ, quit following</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265965200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two immediate responses are prompted by this article...</p><p>First is to call to mind the fate of the Muslim civilization in the second millennium.  The Muslims kept the lights on during the Dark Ages.  They're the reason we know about the ancient Greeks.  In those days, science was considered good, because it was discovery of God's world and ways.  Somewhere about the middle of the second millennium the Muslim civilization encountered other pressures (like invasions) and turned their backs on science in favor of religious dogma.  (Don't know if there was cause and effect there, coincidental timing, or some other relationship.)  They've never been at the forefront of civilization since.  We're starting to do the same thing here in the US.  One key part of science is to face the world truthfully, whatever it tells you, and deal with it.  Religion can help you deal with it.  But when you impose religion as a "truth filter" between you and the real world, you've lost it.</p><p>Second, a more tactical response, is to quit following Texas' lead on textbook purchases.  Is there any reason we have to let them set the standard, or is it a combination of laziness and their purchasing power?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two immediate responses are prompted by this article...First is to call to mind the fate of the Muslim civilization in the second millennium .
The Muslims kept the lights on during the Dark Ages .
They 're the reason we know about the ancient Greeks .
In those days , science was considered good , because it was discovery of God 's world and ways .
Somewhere about the middle of the second millennium the Muslim civilization encountered other pressures ( like invasions ) and turned their backs on science in favor of religious dogma .
( Do n't know if there was cause and effect there , coincidental timing , or some other relationship .
) They 've never been at the forefront of civilization since .
We 're starting to do the same thing here in the US .
One key part of science is to face the world truthfully , whatever it tells you , and deal with it .
Religion can help you deal with it .
But when you impose religion as a " truth filter " between you and the real world , you 've lost it.Second , a more tactical response , is to quit following Texas ' lead on textbook purchases .
Is there any reason we have to let them set the standard , or is it a combination of laziness and their purchasing power ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two immediate responses are prompted by this article...First is to call to mind the fate of the Muslim civilization in the second millennium.
The Muslims kept the lights on during the Dark Ages.
They're the reason we know about the ancient Greeks.
In those days, science was considered good, because it was discovery of God's world and ways.
Somewhere about the middle of the second millennium the Muslim civilization encountered other pressures (like invasions) and turned their backs on science in favor of religious dogma.
(Don't know if there was cause and effect there, coincidental timing, or some other relationship.
)  They've never been at the forefront of civilization since.
We're starting to do the same thing here in the US.
One key part of science is to face the world truthfully, whatever it tells you, and deal with it.
Religion can help you deal with it.
But when you impose religion as a "truth filter" between you and the real world, you've lost it.Second, a more tactical response, is to quit following Texas' lead on textbook purchases.
Is there any reason we have to let them set the standard, or is it a combination of laziness and their purchasing power?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121164</id>
	<title>Re:children at risk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265975580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The bible, and jesus, pretty much considered the worst thing one can do it be a hypocrite.</p></div><p>Wrong.  Being hypocritical is almost universally regarded as a bad thing, but the Bible places no special emphasis on it being worse than any other sin.  The verse you quote is Jesus telling His followers not to be hypocritical, but it's just one of many instructions He gave them.  The Bible spends a great deal more time discussing man and his general relationship with God than it does hypocrisy.  I pity <a href="http://read.ly/Ps14.1.ESV" title="read.ly" rel="nofollow">the fool</a> [read.ly].</p><p>I can't tell if religious discussion on Slashdot is more like a bikeshed or an echo chamber.  The article summary reads like the latter, but your comment sounds more like "RELIGION? OH HAI, I CAN HAZ OPINION?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bible , and jesus , pretty much considered the worst thing one can do it be a hypocrite.Wrong .
Being hypocritical is almost universally regarded as a bad thing , but the Bible places no special emphasis on it being worse than any other sin .
The verse you quote is Jesus telling His followers not to be hypocritical , but it 's just one of many instructions He gave them .
The Bible spends a great deal more time discussing man and his general relationship with God than it does hypocrisy .
I pity the fool [ read.ly ] .I ca n't tell if religious discussion on Slashdot is more like a bikeshed or an echo chamber .
The article summary reads like the latter , but your comment sounds more like " RELIGION ?
OH HAI , I CAN HAZ OPINION ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bible, and jesus, pretty much considered the worst thing one can do it be a hypocrite.Wrong.
Being hypocritical is almost universally regarded as a bad thing, but the Bible places no special emphasis on it being worse than any other sin.
The verse you quote is Jesus telling His followers not to be hypocritical, but it's just one of many instructions He gave them.
The Bible spends a great deal more time discussing man and his general relationship with God than it does hypocrisy.
I pity the fool [read.ly].I can't tell if religious discussion on Slashdot is more like a bikeshed or an echo chamber.
The article summary reads like the latter, but your comment sounds more like "RELIGION?
OH HAI, I CAN HAZ OPINION?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119868</id>
	<title>Re:The irony is this...</title>
	<author>StopKoolaidPoliticsT</author>
	<datestamp>1265971320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with you on all but one point, the Founding Fathers saw a need for a permanent navy to reduce piracy (real piracy) to let the United States trade with Europe and other areas.<br> <br>

Article I, Section 8 says<p><div class="quote"><p>     To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that
     Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;<br> <br>

     To provide and maintain a Navy;<br> <br>

     To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and
     naval Forces;</p></div><p>So no permanent armies, but a permanent navy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you on all but one point , the Founding Fathers saw a need for a permanent navy to reduce piracy ( real piracy ) to let the United States trade with Europe and other areas .
Article I , Section 8 says To raise and support Armies , but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years ; To provide and maintain a Navy ; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces ; So no permanent armies , but a permanent navy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you on all but one point, the Founding Fathers saw a need for a permanent navy to reduce piracy (real piracy) to let the United States trade with Europe and other areas.
Article I, Section 8 says     To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that
     Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; 

     To provide and maintain a Navy; 

     To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and
     naval Forces;So no permanent armies, but a permanent navy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119706</id>
	<title>Re:Does curriculum matter anymore in the Google Ag</title>
	<author>gknoy</author>
	<datestamp>1265970900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I figure that there should be mandatory classes, at the mid to upper high school level<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...:<br>- How to think carefully, logically.<br>- How to search.<br>- How to formulate good questions.<br>- How to recognize bias<br>- How to form beliefs using epistemic responsibility</p></div></blockquote><p>It needs to be MUCH earlier.  Yes, there need to be classes for teens, but also in earlier grades.  Otherwise, the kids will already be accustomed to formulating poor questions (or none at all), not seeing bias, or trying to argue based on opinion rather than evidence.</p><p>That was a poor way to word the last part.  Opinions are good. What I'd like to see less of is, "I believe X, so let me find evidence that supports it and not even bother to look for contradictory evidence or arguments".  (To be fair, they tried to teach us the process of finding such information for good arguments in our advanced writing classes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but the vast majority of kids won't get that.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I figure that there should be mandatory classes , at the mid to upper high school level ... : - How to think carefully , logically.- How to search.- How to formulate good questions.- How to recognize bias- How to form beliefs using epistemic responsibilityIt needs to be MUCH earlier .
Yes , there need to be classes for teens , but also in earlier grades .
Otherwise , the kids will already be accustomed to formulating poor questions ( or none at all ) , not seeing bias , or trying to argue based on opinion rather than evidence.That was a poor way to word the last part .
Opinions are good .
What I 'd like to see less of is , " I believe X , so let me find evidence that supports it and not even bother to look for contradictory evidence or arguments " .
( To be fair , they tried to teach us the process of finding such information for good arguments in our advanced writing classes ... but the vast majority of kids wo n't get that .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I figure that there should be mandatory classes, at the mid to upper high school level ...:- How to think carefully, logically.- How to search.- How to formulate good questions.- How to recognize bias- How to form beliefs using epistemic responsibilityIt needs to be MUCH earlier.
Yes, there need to be classes for teens, but also in earlier grades.
Otherwise, the kids will already be accustomed to formulating poor questions (or none at all), not seeing bias, or trying to argue based on opinion rather than evidence.That was a poor way to word the last part.
Opinions are good.
What I'd like to see less of is, "I believe X, so let me find evidence that supports it and not even bother to look for contradictory evidence or arguments".
(To be fair, they tried to teach us the process of finding such information for good arguments in our advanced writing classes ... but the vast majority of kids won't get that.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118798</id>
	<title>Re:from out of middle-field...</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1265968500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Here's an idea: let's make revisionist history a capitol offense.</i> Right, 'cause the stories of the Trail of Tears, the Japanese Internment Camps, the history of Slavery, and the anti-Chinese immigrant laws passed in California during the gold rush all get taught in all school textbooks... no revisionist history here!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an idea : let 's make revisionist history a capitol offense .
Right , 'cause the stories of the Trail of Tears , the Japanese Internment Camps , the history of Slavery , and the anti-Chinese immigrant laws passed in California during the gold rush all get taught in all school textbooks... no revisionist history here !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an idea: let's make revisionist history a capitol offense.
Right, 'cause the stories of the Trail of Tears, the Japanese Internment Camps, the history of Slavery, and the anti-Chinese immigrant laws passed in California during the gold rush all get taught in all school textbooks... no revisionist history here!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118962</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>yumyum</author>
	<datestamp>1265968980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While the article is a bit biased as well as the people it covers, a lot of the things these people tout amount to plain ignorance.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>More elementally, they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>True.</p></div><p>I'd even argue with the <b>devout</b> part. They all considered themselves Christians, but definitely not in an Evangelical sense. Jefferson in particular was put off by dogma, and you cannot get much closer to dogma than running around quoting the Bible in support of your view and stating it as fact.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While the article is a bit biased as well as the people it covers , a lot of the things these people tout amount to plain ignorance.More elementally , they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians ...True.I 'd even argue with the devout part .
They all considered themselves Christians , but definitely not in an Evangelical sense .
Jefferson in particular was put off by dogma , and you can not get much closer to dogma than running around quoting the Bible in support of your view and stating it as fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the article is a bit biased as well as the people it covers, a lot of the things these people tout amount to plain ignorance.More elementally, they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians ...True.I'd even argue with the devout part.
They all considered themselves Christians, but definitely not in an Evangelical sense.
Jefferson in particular was put off by dogma, and you cannot get much closer to dogma than running around quoting the Bible in support of your view and stating it as fact.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118726</id>
	<title>Dominionism at play</title>
	<author>magus\_melchior</author>
	<datestamp>1265968380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dominionists, for those who don't recognize the term, are Christians (usually evangelical Protestants, though some Catholic groups exhibit dominionist theology) who believe that God's "laws" or moral wishes supersede any law drafted by men. To these folks, abolishing abortion by legislation or by Supreme Court reversal, banning homosexual rights (and possibly even recognition as humans), and creationism (along with a general rejection of scientific consensus) are all crucial and pressing policies that must be enacted in any government.</p><p>Naturally, that theology runs afoul of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...). They will, of course, try to argue that they're not trying to establish a Church of America, but nevertheless the consequences of their success are no different. Furthermore, trying to reason with them is usually futile, as they perceive the US to be a rebellious state against God that was originally founded by Christians (which is a poor reading of history at best)-- and since their theology unnaturally blends Old and New Testaments, they think that if the US continues the status quo or adopts policies left of conservatism*, it will meet the same fate as ancient Israel when it was conquered by Babylon, or when it rebelled against the Roman Empire. No amount of arguing from Paul's letters or "render unto Caesar" will do any good, because as far as they're concerned, they have absolutely nothing to lose-- the Kingdom on the earth must be established, but they will not recognize that it was never meant to be a literal kingdom or government built by the hands of men.</p><p>But in their minds, they've already lost several times-- the conservative Supreme Court has at least ruled conservatively where social issues were concerned-- as in, they relied more on precedent and the Constitution rather than Christian morals (though we'll really see their true colors when the CA Prop 8 trial is sent their way), they only got what was no doubt in their minds a watered-down abortion/stem cell ban from Congress, and they've now lost a very reliable friend and ally in the White House due to term limits and a charismatic Democrat-- not that the former Alaskan governor did much to help them at all. They refuse to believe that their allies in government (the Republicans) failed them, because their allies are their leaders and to them, "one of us". If you're a member of the congregation, you don't speak ill of "one of us", though you can heap criticism and vitriol on "one of them". Therefore they see the electoral losses in 2006 and 2008 not as defeats, but as "them"-- non-dominionists-- having conspired to destroy the Church (or euphemistically, the "good things about America"). You'll notice that this duress argument is used commonly in the big Tea Party rallies and by some right-wing media men.</p><p>So the way they see it, because the "liberals" and the "atheists"** cheated, they're going to fight back just as dirty-- but of course they'll justify their own actions as "saving the children", as that has demonstrably worked to enact skewed legislation for generations. Their efforts to mess with public school textbooks is but a taste of what these extremists are capable of, and are willing to do. The greatest shame is that they will think they have brought another Enlightenment and Revival to the US, when in fact they will have consigned their children to academic inferiority as China, India, and other nations progress. The conservatives who are participating in the name of ideological "balance" are digging their own graves as well, as they are more interested in indoctrination, not building up thinking skills in our children. I suppose that, given their permanent self-victimization, they'll blame our relative failure on the "liberals" and "atheists" too.</p><p>* Given the "small government" creed of conservatism, dominionism has always been a strange bedfellow, but I suppose Frank Schaeffer's father leveraged his connections well to cement the alliance...<br>** And here's where Dawkins' movement really hurts those who wish to bring some of these folks back to reason... Yes, I know reasoning with them is usually futile, but that doesn't mean I'll stop trying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dominionists , for those who do n't recognize the term , are Christians ( usually evangelical Protestants , though some Catholic groups exhibit dominionist theology ) who believe that God 's " laws " or moral wishes supersede any law drafted by men .
To these folks , abolishing abortion by legislation or by Supreme Court reversal , banning homosexual rights ( and possibly even recognition as humans ) , and creationism ( along with a general rejection of scientific consensus ) are all crucial and pressing policies that must be enacted in any government.Naturally , that theology runs afoul of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ( Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... ) .
They will , of course , try to argue that they 're not trying to establish a Church of America , but nevertheless the consequences of their success are no different .
Furthermore , trying to reason with them is usually futile , as they perceive the US to be a rebellious state against God that was originally founded by Christians ( which is a poor reading of history at best ) -- and since their theology unnaturally blends Old and New Testaments , they think that if the US continues the status quo or adopts policies left of conservatism * , it will meet the same fate as ancient Israel when it was conquered by Babylon , or when it rebelled against the Roman Empire .
No amount of arguing from Paul 's letters or " render unto Caesar " will do any good , because as far as they 're concerned , they have absolutely nothing to lose-- the Kingdom on the earth must be established , but they will not recognize that it was never meant to be a literal kingdom or government built by the hands of men.But in their minds , they 've already lost several times-- the conservative Supreme Court has at least ruled conservatively where social issues were concerned-- as in , they relied more on precedent and the Constitution rather than Christian morals ( though we 'll really see their true colors when the CA Prop 8 trial is sent their way ) , they only got what was no doubt in their minds a watered-down abortion/stem cell ban from Congress , and they 've now lost a very reliable friend and ally in the White House due to term limits and a charismatic Democrat-- not that the former Alaskan governor did much to help them at all .
They refuse to believe that their allies in government ( the Republicans ) failed them , because their allies are their leaders and to them , " one of us " .
If you 're a member of the congregation , you do n't speak ill of " one of us " , though you can heap criticism and vitriol on " one of them " .
Therefore they see the electoral losses in 2006 and 2008 not as defeats , but as " them " -- non-dominionists-- having conspired to destroy the Church ( or euphemistically , the " good things about America " ) .
You 'll notice that this duress argument is used commonly in the big Tea Party rallies and by some right-wing media men.So the way they see it , because the " liberals " and the " atheists " * * cheated , they 're going to fight back just as dirty-- but of course they 'll justify their own actions as " saving the children " , as that has demonstrably worked to enact skewed legislation for generations .
Their efforts to mess with public school textbooks is but a taste of what these extremists are capable of , and are willing to do .
The greatest shame is that they will think they have brought another Enlightenment and Revival to the US , when in fact they will have consigned their children to academic inferiority as China , India , and other nations progress .
The conservatives who are participating in the name of ideological " balance " are digging their own graves as well , as they are more interested in indoctrination , not building up thinking skills in our children .
I suppose that , given their permanent self-victimization , they 'll blame our relative failure on the " liberals " and " atheists " too .
* Given the " small government " creed of conservatism , dominionism has always been a strange bedfellow , but I suppose Frank Schaeffer 's father leveraged his connections well to cement the alliance... * * And here 's where Dawkins ' movement really hurts those who wish to bring some of these folks back to reason... Yes , I know reasoning with them is usually futile , but that does n't mean I 'll stop trying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dominionists, for those who don't recognize the term, are Christians (usually evangelical Protestants, though some Catholic groups exhibit dominionist theology) who believe that God's "laws" or moral wishes supersede any law drafted by men.
To these folks, abolishing abortion by legislation or by Supreme Court reversal, banning homosexual rights (and possibly even recognition as humans), and creationism (along with a general rejection of scientific consensus) are all crucial and pressing policies that must be enacted in any government.Naturally, that theology runs afoul of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...).
They will, of course, try to argue that they're not trying to establish a Church of America, but nevertheless the consequences of their success are no different.
Furthermore, trying to reason with them is usually futile, as they perceive the US to be a rebellious state against God that was originally founded by Christians (which is a poor reading of history at best)-- and since their theology unnaturally blends Old and New Testaments, they think that if the US continues the status quo or adopts policies left of conservatism*, it will meet the same fate as ancient Israel when it was conquered by Babylon, or when it rebelled against the Roman Empire.
No amount of arguing from Paul's letters or "render unto Caesar" will do any good, because as far as they're concerned, they have absolutely nothing to lose-- the Kingdom on the earth must be established, but they will not recognize that it was never meant to be a literal kingdom or government built by the hands of men.But in their minds, they've already lost several times-- the conservative Supreme Court has at least ruled conservatively where social issues were concerned-- as in, they relied more on precedent and the Constitution rather than Christian morals (though we'll really see their true colors when the CA Prop 8 trial is sent their way), they only got what was no doubt in their minds a watered-down abortion/stem cell ban from Congress, and they've now lost a very reliable friend and ally in the White House due to term limits and a charismatic Democrat-- not that the former Alaskan governor did much to help them at all.
They refuse to believe that their allies in government (the Republicans) failed them, because their allies are their leaders and to them, "one of us".
If you're a member of the congregation, you don't speak ill of "one of us", though you can heap criticism and vitriol on "one of them".
Therefore they see the electoral losses in 2006 and 2008 not as defeats, but as "them"-- non-dominionists-- having conspired to destroy the Church (or euphemistically, the "good things about America").
You'll notice that this duress argument is used commonly in the big Tea Party rallies and by some right-wing media men.So the way they see it, because the "liberals" and the "atheists"** cheated, they're going to fight back just as dirty-- but of course they'll justify their own actions as "saving the children", as that has demonstrably worked to enact skewed legislation for generations.
Their efforts to mess with public school textbooks is but a taste of what these extremists are capable of, and are willing to do.
The greatest shame is that they will think they have brought another Enlightenment and Revival to the US, when in fact they will have consigned their children to academic inferiority as China, India, and other nations progress.
The conservatives who are participating in the name of ideological "balance" are digging their own graves as well, as they are more interested in indoctrination, not building up thinking skills in our children.
I suppose that, given their permanent self-victimization, they'll blame our relative failure on the "liberals" and "atheists" too.
* Given the "small government" creed of conservatism, dominionism has always been a strange bedfellow, but I suppose Frank Schaeffer's father leveraged his connections well to cement the alliance...** And here's where Dawkins' movement really hurts those who wish to bring some of these folks back to reason... Yes, I know reasoning with them is usually futile, but that doesn't mean I'll stop trying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117598</id>
	<title>Just an observation...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265965440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...this evangelical lobby has successfully had references to the American Constitution as a 'living document,' as textbooks have defined it since the 1950s,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>I would assert that the Constitution exists as the 'supreme law' of the land in American Federalism.  Further, I would assert that the concept of "rule of law" is incompatible with the idea that the 'supreme law' is open for whimsical interpretation.  Just because textbooks have defined the constitution as a 'living document' for 50+ years is not de facto proof that the interpretation is correct.  Obviously, I do not personally subscribe to that theory.</p><p>On the other side, I would prefer if textbooks focused more on observation, hypothesis, and theory... and less on wild speculation.  I am sure if you looked, you could find people that feel disenfranchised because no textbook offers the theory that the universe came from a giant chocolate egg pooped out of an eternal Easter bunny.  We should be less concerned about whats 'possible' and more concerned about what we can see, measure, and test.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...this evangelical lobby has successfully had references to the American Constitution as a 'living document, ' as textbooks have defined it since the 1950s , ...I would assert that the Constitution exists as the 'supreme law ' of the land in American Federalism .
Further , I would assert that the concept of " rule of law " is incompatible with the idea that the 'supreme law ' is open for whimsical interpretation .
Just because textbooks have defined the constitution as a 'living document ' for 50 + years is not de facto proof that the interpretation is correct .
Obviously , I do not personally subscribe to that theory.On the other side , I would prefer if textbooks focused more on observation , hypothesis , and theory... and less on wild speculation .
I am sure if you looked , you could find people that feel disenfranchised because no textbook offers the theory that the universe came from a giant chocolate egg pooped out of an eternal Easter bunny .
We should be less concerned about whats 'possible ' and more concerned about what we can see , measure , and test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...this evangelical lobby has successfully had references to the American Constitution as a 'living document,' as textbooks have defined it since the 1950s, ...I would assert that the Constitution exists as the 'supreme law' of the land in American Federalism.
Further, I would assert that the concept of "rule of law" is incompatible with the idea that the 'supreme law' is open for whimsical interpretation.
Just because textbooks have defined the constitution as a 'living document' for 50+ years is not de facto proof that the interpretation is correct.
Obviously, I do not personally subscribe to that theory.On the other side, I would prefer if textbooks focused more on observation, hypothesis, and theory... and less on wild speculation.
I am sure if you looked, you could find people that feel disenfranchised because no textbook offers the theory that the universe came from a giant chocolate egg pooped out of an eternal Easter bunny.
We should be less concerned about whats 'possible' and more concerned about what we can see, measure, and test.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119086</id>
	<title>Religious People Cannot be Trusted!</title>
	<author>gbutler69</author>
	<datestamp>1265969220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is clear to me that religious people cannot be trusted. They are liars. They lie to themselves. They CHOOSE to believe in fantasy instead of established, observable facts. In other words, they lie to themselves and everyone around them. Any mind/personality capable of such thorough and depraved lying, cannot be trusted. Ergo, I never trust religious people. "God Fearing" = "Liar" as far as I'm concerned. It is malicious ignorance. Nothing more. They will be the downfall of society and humanity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is clear to me that religious people can not be trusted .
They are liars .
They lie to themselves .
They CHOOSE to believe in fantasy instead of established , observable facts .
In other words , they lie to themselves and everyone around them .
Any mind/personality capable of such thorough and depraved lying , can not be trusted .
Ergo , I never trust religious people .
" God Fearing " = " Liar " as far as I 'm concerned .
It is malicious ignorance .
Nothing more .
They will be the downfall of society and humanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is clear to me that religious people cannot be trusted.
They are liars.
They lie to themselves.
They CHOOSE to believe in fantasy instead of established, observable facts.
In other words, they lie to themselves and everyone around them.
Any mind/personality capable of such thorough and depraved lying, cannot be trusted.
Ergo, I never trust religious people.
"God Fearing" = "Liar" as far as I'm concerned.
It is malicious ignorance.
Nothing more.
They will be the downfall of society and humanity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230</id>
	<title>People weren't aware of this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266007500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...dismissing the stories as just 'dumbass Texans,' but what I didn't realize is that Texas schoolbooks set the standard for the rest of the country.</p></div><p>I knew this and am not even American. Every piece of coverage I've seen on this issue has explained how wide reaching the ramifications are. How can anyone have missed it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...dismissing the stories as just 'dumbass Texans, ' but what I did n't realize is that Texas schoolbooks set the standard for the rest of the country.I knew this and am not even American .
Every piece of coverage I 've seen on this issue has explained how wide reaching the ramifications are .
How can anyone have missed it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...dismissing the stories as just 'dumbass Texans,' but what I didn't realize is that Texas schoolbooks set the standard for the rest of the country.I knew this and am not even American.
Every piece of coverage I've seen on this issue has explained how wide reaching the ramifications are.
How can anyone have missed it?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118326</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265967420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then keep your evolution crap out of our schools as well.<br>You weren't there at the beginning, so evolution is nothing more than your theories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then keep your evolution crap out of our schools as well.You were n't there at the beginning , so evolution is nothing more than your theories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then keep your evolution crap out of our schools as well.You weren't there at the beginning, so evolution is nothing more than your theories.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119932</id>
	<title>Re:Well, 'fair dos' to them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265971500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The changes are damnably wrong.  Magic and magical thinking don't belong in the science classroom, and our body of law is and always has been up for not just amendment, but for reinterpretation with each passing generation.  The absurd perennial wishes of extremists to have their personal policy preferences ensconced into the Constitution must be either redirected to their correct place in ordinary federal law, or rebuffed entirely.</p><p>All of that being said, to compare this schoolbook dustup directly with Islamic madrassas is to make the same mistake as do people who equate lewd workplace comments with physical rape.  Bad, meet much, much worse.</p><p>To point out that religious indoctrination is one of the evils we are fighting overseas is legitimate.  To mention that freedom from such state-backed indoctrination and oppression is one of the rights our founding fathers, as well as centuries of patriots, workers, soldiers, and statesmen have bled, starved, frozen, toiled, and died for, is legitimate.  To bring to light the joint action of several Abrahamic religious bodies and groups (including some Catholic and Protestant enclaves) to firmly establish Sharia law in the West as an alternative dispute resolution method, complete with its own binding language, methods, and (lack of) protections -- this, too, is legitimate.</p><p>Let us not confuse ourselves and dilute our message by staking up straw men, for the reality is adequately frightening.  This effort on the part of these Texans, these theists, these reactionaries, is sheer culture shock -- half-remembered dreams of days long past, fear of what is to come.  They want their children (and everyone else's) wrapped in soft cocoons of fine-spun mythology about benevolent spirits and Manifest Destiny.  It is, indeed, up to those who do not share this view to rescue our youth from their skeletal grasp.</p><p>You holders of old, discredited ideas: the future your generation wrought is manifest.  Release your bony grasp, and let your mature progeny take their turn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The changes are damnably wrong .
Magic and magical thinking do n't belong in the science classroom , and our body of law is and always has been up for not just amendment , but for reinterpretation with each passing generation .
The absurd perennial wishes of extremists to have their personal policy preferences ensconced into the Constitution must be either redirected to their correct place in ordinary federal law , or rebuffed entirely.All of that being said , to compare this schoolbook dustup directly with Islamic madrassas is to make the same mistake as do people who equate lewd workplace comments with physical rape .
Bad , meet much , much worse.To point out that religious indoctrination is one of the evils we are fighting overseas is legitimate .
To mention that freedom from such state-backed indoctrination and oppression is one of the rights our founding fathers , as well as centuries of patriots , workers , soldiers , and statesmen have bled , starved , frozen , toiled , and died for , is legitimate .
To bring to light the joint action of several Abrahamic religious bodies and groups ( including some Catholic and Protestant enclaves ) to firmly establish Sharia law in the West as an alternative dispute resolution method , complete with its own binding language , methods , and ( lack of ) protections -- this , too , is legitimate.Let us not confuse ourselves and dilute our message by staking up straw men , for the reality is adequately frightening .
This effort on the part of these Texans , these theists , these reactionaries , is sheer culture shock -- half-remembered dreams of days long past , fear of what is to come .
They want their children ( and everyone else 's ) wrapped in soft cocoons of fine-spun mythology about benevolent spirits and Manifest Destiny .
It is , indeed , up to those who do not share this view to rescue our youth from their skeletal grasp.You holders of old , discredited ideas : the future your generation wrought is manifest .
Release your bony grasp , and let your mature progeny take their turn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The changes are damnably wrong.
Magic and magical thinking don't belong in the science classroom, and our body of law is and always has been up for not just amendment, but for reinterpretation with each passing generation.
The absurd perennial wishes of extremists to have their personal policy preferences ensconced into the Constitution must be either redirected to their correct place in ordinary federal law, or rebuffed entirely.All of that being said, to compare this schoolbook dustup directly with Islamic madrassas is to make the same mistake as do people who equate lewd workplace comments with physical rape.
Bad, meet much, much worse.To point out that religious indoctrination is one of the evils we are fighting overseas is legitimate.
To mention that freedom from such state-backed indoctrination and oppression is one of the rights our founding fathers, as well as centuries of patriots, workers, soldiers, and statesmen have bled, starved, frozen, toiled, and died for, is legitimate.
To bring to light the joint action of several Abrahamic religious bodies and groups (including some Catholic and Protestant enclaves) to firmly establish Sharia law in the West as an alternative dispute resolution method, complete with its own binding language, methods, and (lack of) protections -- this, too, is legitimate.Let us not confuse ourselves and dilute our message by staking up straw men, for the reality is adequately frightening.
This effort on the part of these Texans, these theists, these reactionaries, is sheer culture shock -- half-remembered dreams of days long past, fear of what is to come.
They want their children (and everyone else's) wrapped in soft cocoons of fine-spun mythology about benevolent spirits and Manifest Destiny.
It is, indeed, up to those who do not share this view to rescue our youth from their skeletal grasp.You holders of old, discredited ideas: the future your generation wrought is manifest.
Release your bony grasp, and let your mature progeny take their turn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31123980</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>williamhb</author>
	<datestamp>1265992380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All men and women are created equal. Everyone has a right to practice what religion they so choose. So keep your religious crap out of our public schools.</p></div><p>"All men are created equal" is itself a religious view -- the second clause that you did not quote being "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights", and being a religious rejection of the divine right of kings.  Indeed, the idea that all men and women are created equal is entirely <i>anti-scientific</i> as it is strongly held even though it flies in the face of all the empirical evidence.  We are not equal at conception or birth; we have distinct advantages and disadvantages based on our genes and the family situations we are born into.  So does that mean you would like it banned from our public schools, or does it get a pass because you happen to like it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All men and women are created equal .
Everyone has a right to practice what religion they so choose .
So keep your religious crap out of our public schools .
" All men are created equal " is itself a religious view -- the second clause that you did not quote being " endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights " , and being a religious rejection of the divine right of kings .
Indeed , the idea that all men and women are created equal is entirely anti-scientific as it is strongly held even though it flies in the face of all the empirical evidence .
We are not equal at conception or birth ; we have distinct advantages and disadvantages based on our genes and the family situations we are born into .
So does that mean you would like it banned from our public schools , or does it get a pass because you happen to like it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All men and women are created equal.
Everyone has a right to practice what religion they so choose.
So keep your religious crap out of our public schools.
"All men are created equal" is itself a religious view -- the second clause that you did not quote being "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights", and being a religious rejection of the divine right of kings.
Indeed, the idea that all men and women are created equal is entirely anti-scientific as it is strongly held even though it flies in the face of all the empirical evidence.
We are not equal at conception or birth; we have distinct advantages and disadvantages based on our genes and the family situations we are born into.
So does that mean you would like it banned from our public schools, or does it get a pass because you happen to like it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117688</id>
	<title>Everyone Gets Their Own Truth Now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265965740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, I have to chuckle every time I see one of these stories. When I was back in school, it was pretty standard classical stuff - the Greeks, Shakespeare, Newton, the Scientific Method, etc. Now, it happened to be that dead white guys came up with most of that stuff, but that was just how it was. But sometime after I left, the Deconstructionists, the Postmodernists, the Moral Relativists, and the Frankfurt School got their hands on the reigns. No ones 'truth' was any better than another. The scientific method was no more valid than animism. Everyone got their own truth.</p><p>Well, guess what, folks? Now the Christian Fundamentalists (and the Islamic Fundamentalists) are pressing for their own 'truth'. Remember, yin and yang - everything contains within itself the seed of its opposite. That's one piece of non-white guy wisdom that holds up pretty well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I have to chuckle every time I see one of these stories .
When I was back in school , it was pretty standard classical stuff - the Greeks , Shakespeare , Newton , the Scientific Method , etc .
Now , it happened to be that dead white guys came up with most of that stuff , but that was just how it was .
But sometime after I left , the Deconstructionists , the Postmodernists , the Moral Relativists , and the Frankfurt School got their hands on the reigns .
No ones 'truth ' was any better than another .
The scientific method was no more valid than animism .
Everyone got their own truth.Well , guess what , folks ?
Now the Christian Fundamentalists ( and the Islamic Fundamentalists ) are pressing for their own 'truth' .
Remember , yin and yang - everything contains within itself the seed of its opposite .
That 's one piece of non-white guy wisdom that holds up pretty well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I have to chuckle every time I see one of these stories.
When I was back in school, it was pretty standard classical stuff - the Greeks, Shakespeare, Newton, the Scientific Method, etc.
Now, it happened to be that dead white guys came up with most of that stuff, but that was just how it was.
But sometime after I left, the Deconstructionists, the Postmodernists, the Moral Relativists, and the Frankfurt School got their hands on the reigns.
No ones 'truth' was any better than another.
The scientific method was no more valid than animism.
Everyone got their own truth.Well, guess what, folks?
Now the Christian Fundamentalists (and the Islamic Fundamentalists) are pressing for their own 'truth'.
Remember, yin and yang - everything contains within itself the seed of its opposite.
That's one piece of non-white guy wisdom that holds up pretty well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31127442</id>
	<title>History as myth</title>
	<author>ResidentSourcerer</author>
	<datestamp>1266080460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>History is hard to present objectively.  If you read a significant number of histories, even the the way history is presented -- what's considered important -- varies both from book to book, and from era to era.</p><p>All history is simplification.  It has to be. And every author has a bias in how he chooses to include as relevant, and what he leaves out.  This is good.  If he was totally unbiased, it would read like noise.</p><p>At the elementary and high school level, teaching history is pretty much deciding which myths you're going to teach.</p><p>Lot of U.S. histories present the U.S. as 'never being the aggressor' in a war.  In grade school I was still taught the bit about Washington and the cherry tree, and Lincoln and the penny.</p><p>Things like choosing between "Living document" versus "Enduring document" for the Constitution is a matter of view point.  It's both.  And neither.  It's hard to change.  It's easy to re-interpret.</p><p>I'm a dual citizen, US and Canada.  I see what's happening in Texas, and what's happening generally in the U.S.</p><p>Between Homeland security, and the Religious Right, I'm just waiting for an Evangelist named Nehemiah Scudder to rise as First Prophet.</p><p>Seriously -- I don't expect the U.S. to remain a free society in any meaningful sense of the word for more than another decade or so.</p><p>[Allusion to R.A. Heinlein's "Revolt in 2100"]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>History is hard to present objectively .
If you read a significant number of histories , even the the way history is presented -- what 's considered important -- varies both from book to book , and from era to era.All history is simplification .
It has to be .
And every author has a bias in how he chooses to include as relevant , and what he leaves out .
This is good .
If he was totally unbiased , it would read like noise.At the elementary and high school level , teaching history is pretty much deciding which myths you 're going to teach.Lot of U.S. histories present the U.S. as 'never being the aggressor ' in a war .
In grade school I was still taught the bit about Washington and the cherry tree , and Lincoln and the penny.Things like choosing between " Living document " versus " Enduring document " for the Constitution is a matter of view point .
It 's both .
And neither .
It 's hard to change .
It 's easy to re-interpret.I 'm a dual citizen , US and Canada .
I see what 's happening in Texas , and what 's happening generally in the U.S.Between Homeland security , and the Religious Right , I 'm just waiting for an Evangelist named Nehemiah Scudder to rise as First Prophet.Seriously -- I do n't expect the U.S. to remain a free society in any meaningful sense of the word for more than another decade or so .
[ Allusion to R.A. Heinlein 's " Revolt in 2100 " ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>History is hard to present objectively.
If you read a significant number of histories, even the the way history is presented -- what's considered important -- varies both from book to book, and from era to era.All history is simplification.
It has to be.
And every author has a bias in how he chooses to include as relevant, and what he leaves out.
This is good.
If he was totally unbiased, it would read like noise.At the elementary and high school level, teaching history is pretty much deciding which myths you're going to teach.Lot of U.S. histories present the U.S. as 'never being the aggressor' in a war.
In grade school I was still taught the bit about Washington and the cherry tree, and Lincoln and the penny.Things like choosing between "Living document" versus "Enduring document" for the Constitution is a matter of view point.
It's both.
And neither.
It's hard to change.
It's easy to re-interpret.I'm a dual citizen, US and Canada.
I see what's happening in Texas, and what's happening generally in the U.S.Between Homeland security, and the Religious Right, I'm just waiting for an Evangelist named Nehemiah Scudder to rise as First Prophet.Seriously -- I don't expect the U.S. to remain a free society in any meaningful sense of the word for more than another decade or so.
[Allusion to R.A. Heinlein's "Revolt in 2100"]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119920</id>
	<title>Re:How bad could it be?</title>
	<author>Nidi62</author>
	<datestamp>1265971500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yeah, but he's still the crappiest president of my lifetime.</p></div><p>wow, for a 9 year old, you sure do have a really low slashdot ID.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but he 's still the crappiest president of my lifetime.wow , for a 9 year old , you sure do have a really low slashdot ID .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but he's still the crappiest president of my lifetime.wow, for a 9 year old, you sure do have a really low slashdot ID.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122856</id>
	<title>Not a living document.</title>
	<author>Usagi\_yo</author>
	<datestamp>1265983380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, seeing how the Constitution goes about defining the method and means of it's own change, It's kinda hard to believe it is a "Living Document".  A perfect example of a living document is in George Orwell's Animal Farm.  The 'constitution' the pigs drew up post farm revolution.  That's what happens to rights based on "living documents".  Oh and the founding fathers were for the most part Deists.  Kinda like the clock maker argument.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , seeing how the Constitution goes about defining the method and means of it 's own change , It 's kinda hard to believe it is a " Living Document " .
A perfect example of a living document is in George Orwell 's Animal Farm .
The 'constitution ' the pigs drew up post farm revolution .
That 's what happens to rights based on " living documents " .
Oh and the founding fathers were for the most part Deists .
Kinda like the clock maker argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, seeing how the Constitution goes about defining the method and means of it's own change, It's kinda hard to believe it is a "Living Document".
A perfect example of a living document is in George Orwell's Animal Farm.
The 'constitution' the pigs drew up post farm revolution.
That's what happens to rights based on "living documents".
Oh and the founding fathers were for the most part Deists.
Kinda like the clock maker argument.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121288</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265976060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thomas Jefferson was the only one who used the "wall of separation" terminology, and never mind that in relation to the Ursuline Sisters this same Jefferson actually spoke of the government providing funds to their specifically religious organization.</p><p>Letter written to the Ursuline nuns in 1804 by Thomas Jefferson:</p><blockquote><div><p>Washington, May 15, 1804</p><p>I have received, holy sisters, the letter you have written me wherein you express anxiety for the property vested in your institution by the former governments of Louisiana.  The principles of the constitution and government of the United States are a guarantee to you that it will be preserved to you, sacred and inviolate, and that your institution will be permitted to govern itself according to its own voluntary rules, without interference from the civil authority.  Whatever the diversity of shade may appear in the religious opinions of our fellow citizens, the charitable objects of your institution cannot be indifferent to any; and its furtherance of the wholesome purposes of society, by training up its younger members in the way they should go, cannot fail to ensure it the patronage of the government it is under.  Be assured it will meet all the protection which my office can give it.</p><p>I salute you, holy sisters, with friendship and respect.<br>Thomas Jefferson</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thomas Jefferson was the only one who used the " wall of separation " terminology , and never mind that in relation to the Ursuline Sisters this same Jefferson actually spoke of the government providing funds to their specifically religious organization.Letter written to the Ursuline nuns in 1804 by Thomas Jefferson : Washington , May 15 , 1804I have received , holy sisters , the letter you have written me wherein you express anxiety for the property vested in your institution by the former governments of Louisiana .
The principles of the constitution and government of the United States are a guarantee to you that it will be preserved to you , sacred and inviolate , and that your institution will be permitted to govern itself according to its own voluntary rules , without interference from the civil authority .
Whatever the diversity of shade may appear in the religious opinions of our fellow citizens , the charitable objects of your institution can not be indifferent to any ; and its furtherance of the wholesome purposes of society , by training up its younger members in the way they should go , can not fail to ensure it the patronage of the government it is under .
Be assured it will meet all the protection which my office can give it.I salute you , holy sisters , with friendship and respect.Thomas Jefferson</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thomas Jefferson was the only one who used the "wall of separation" terminology, and never mind that in relation to the Ursuline Sisters this same Jefferson actually spoke of the government providing funds to their specifically religious organization.Letter written to the Ursuline nuns in 1804 by Thomas Jefferson:Washington, May 15, 1804I have received, holy sisters, the letter you have written me wherein you express anxiety for the property vested in your institution by the former governments of Louisiana.
The principles of the constitution and government of the United States are a guarantee to you that it will be preserved to you, sacred and inviolate, and that your institution will be permitted to govern itself according to its own voluntary rules, without interference from the civil authority.
Whatever the diversity of shade may appear in the religious opinions of our fellow citizens, the charitable objects of your institution cannot be indifferent to any; and its furtherance of the wholesome purposes of society, by training up its younger members in the way they should go, cannot fail to ensure it the patronage of the government it is under.
Be assured it will meet all the protection which my office can give it.I salute you, holy sisters, with friendship and respect.Thomas Jefferson
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118300</id>
	<title>Re:Lies my Teacher Told Me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265967360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where's the antibiotic resistant polio? Surely polio should have evolved "so quickly" and become resistant to treatments and vaccinations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 's the antibiotic resistant polio ?
Surely polio should have evolved " so quickly " and become resistant to treatments and vaccinations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where's the antibiotic resistant polio?
Surely polio should have evolved "so quickly" and become resistant to treatments and vaccinations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120790</id>
	<title>Re:Second millennium Muslim civ, quit following</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265974320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing is simple in history, the 'dark ages' stop when the Muslims put the light out in 1453. "The Fall of Constantinople is seen by some scholars as being a key event in leading to the end of the Middle Ages, and some mark the end of the Middle Ages by this event."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing is simple in history , the 'dark ages ' stop when the Muslims put the light out in 1453 .
" The Fall of Constantinople is seen by some scholars as being a key event in leading to the end of the Middle Ages , and some mark the end of the Middle Ages by this event .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing is simple in history, the 'dark ages' stop when the Muslims put the light out in 1453.
"The Fall of Constantinople is seen by some scholars as being a key event in leading to the end of the Middle Ages, and some mark the end of the Middle Ages by this event.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121944</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>jimbolauski</author>
	<datestamp>1265979120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All men and women are created equal.  Everyone has a right to practice what religion they so choose.  So keep your religious crap out of our public schools.</p></div><p>
If only it were that easy. Teaching evolution can be interpreted as religious crap, no matter the facts, in comes into conflict with the creationist beliefs and as you said they have a right practice their religion, the Texas board has chosen the approach of including both in text books because they don't want to deal with the headaches of leaving out one or another.  Their only other choice is to leave out subjects that offend groups which is just as stupid.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All men and women are created equal .
Everyone has a right to practice what religion they so choose .
So keep your religious crap out of our public schools .
If only it were that easy .
Teaching evolution can be interpreted as religious crap , no matter the facts , in comes into conflict with the creationist beliefs and as you said they have a right practice their religion , the Texas board has chosen the approach of including both in text books because they do n't want to deal with the headaches of leaving out one or another .
Their only other choice is to leave out subjects that offend groups which is just as stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All men and women are created equal.
Everyone has a right to practice what religion they so choose.
So keep your religious crap out of our public schools.
If only it were that easy.
Teaching evolution can be interpreted as religious crap, no matter the facts, in comes into conflict with the creationist beliefs and as you said they have a right practice their religion, the Texas board has chosen the approach of including both in text books because they don't want to deal with the headaches of leaving out one or another.
Their only other choice is to leave out subjects that offend groups which is just as stupid.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121206</id>
	<title>Which Came First, The Chicken or the Egg</title>
	<author>manlygeek</author>
	<datestamp>1265975760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Besides pointing out a real problem with "science" and its take on origins, I would submit that it has been Dewey and his successors that have rewritten history, politics, etc into a secular cast that was originally and legitimately Christian.  Sorry guys, but it appears that what the Texas school board is doing is just trying to restore the perspective to what it was before it was brazenly rewritten by a bunch of modernists whose outlook was so bankrupt that it devolved into the cynicism that is postmodern thought.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides pointing out a real problem with " science " and its take on origins , I would submit that it has been Dewey and his successors that have rewritten history , politics , etc into a secular cast that was originally and legitimately Christian .
Sorry guys , but it appears that what the Texas school board is doing is just trying to restore the perspective to what it was before it was brazenly rewritten by a bunch of modernists whose outlook was so bankrupt that it devolved into the cynicism that is postmodern thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides pointing out a real problem with "science" and its take on origins, I would submit that it has been Dewey and his successors that have rewritten history, politics, etc into a secular cast that was originally and legitimately Christian.
Sorry guys, but it appears that what the Texas school board is doing is just trying to restore the perspective to what it was before it was brazenly rewritten by a bunch of modernists whose outlook was so bankrupt that it devolved into the cynicism that is postmodern thought.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117616</id>
	<title>If they are going to</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1265965500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have creation theories, then they need to have several others for context.</p><p>In the beginning there was an empty darkness. The only thing in this void was Nyx, a bird with black wings. With the wind she laid a golden egg and for ages she sat upon this egg. Finally life began to stir in the egg and out of it rose Eros, the god of love. One half of the shell rose into the air and became the sky and the other became the Earth. Eros named the sky Uranus and the Earth he named Gaia.</p><p>
To compare what people once believed without evidence, to what they now believe is relevant. The above was documented by people who existed before the people who wrote the bible, that doesn't make it what actually happened.. The fact that people said or wrote things, does not make them facts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have creation theories , then they need to have several others for context.In the beginning there was an empty darkness .
The only thing in this void was Nyx , a bird with black wings .
With the wind she laid a golden egg and for ages she sat upon this egg .
Finally life began to stir in the egg and out of it rose Eros , the god of love .
One half of the shell rose into the air and became the sky and the other became the Earth .
Eros named the sky Uranus and the Earth he named Gaia .
To compare what people once believed without evidence , to what they now believe is relevant .
The above was documented by people who existed before the people who wrote the bible , that does n't make it what actually happened.. The fact that people said or wrote things , does not make them facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have creation theories, then they need to have several others for context.In the beginning there was an empty darkness.
The only thing in this void was Nyx, a bird with black wings.
With the wind she laid a golden egg and for ages she sat upon this egg.
Finally life began to stir in the egg and out of it rose Eros, the god of love.
One half of the shell rose into the air and became the sky and the other became the Earth.
Eros named the sky Uranus and the Earth he named Gaia.
To compare what people once believed without evidence, to what they now believe is relevant.
The above was documented by people who existed before the people who wrote the bible, that doesn't make it what actually happened.. The fact that people said or wrote things, does not make them facts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118392</id>
	<title>Re:People weren't aware of this?</title>
	<author>Deisatru</author>
	<datestamp>1265967540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because he is a dumbass yankee</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because he is a dumbass yankee</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because he is a dumbass yankee</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31125936</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1266064200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Yet, those folks were smart enough not to make him their governor.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet , those folks were smart enough not to make him their governor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet, those folks were smart enough not to make him their governor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117602</id>
	<title>Re:Well, 'fair dos' to them</title>
	<author>RobinEggs</author>
	<datestamp>1265965500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just why is the parent flamebaiting?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just why is the parent flamebaiting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just why is the parent flamebaiting?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118812</id>
	<title>Nuance takes time</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1265968560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's up to the rest of society to fight their corner equally well, in the interests of balance; unfortunately only the fanatics seem to have the energy to do this...</p></div><p>Only the fanatics have ideas small enough to fit into thirty second sound bites. When you've been raised to believe that your parents passed the One And Only Truth to you, and someone says, "God is great!", it's not going to matter what the other person says, unless you say "Allahu akbar" instead. You can't even bother your average American to vote once a year, much less examine an issue as complex as the relationship between education, religion, and government. It's not that the the other side lacks the energy, but they have to fight dogma and the establishment hierarchies (corporations, churches, and some parts of government) who are benefiting from this self imposed ignorance.</p><p>America is hit particularly hard by this phenomenon because it's historically anti-intellectual. In fact, the only semi-modern country I'm aware of that shares in the same amount of religious hysteria is Iran.</p><p>I'm all for allowing Texas to turn into a theocracy, and leaving individual states to decide their own education. Texans could then serve as a reminder that marrying religion and state is still an enormously stupid idea.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's up to the rest of society to fight their corner equally well , in the interests of balance ; unfortunately only the fanatics seem to have the energy to do this...Only the fanatics have ideas small enough to fit into thirty second sound bites .
When you 've been raised to believe that your parents passed the One And Only Truth to you , and someone says , " God is great !
" , it 's not going to matter what the other person says , unless you say " Allahu akbar " instead .
You ca n't even bother your average American to vote once a year , much less examine an issue as complex as the relationship between education , religion , and government .
It 's not that the the other side lacks the energy , but they have to fight dogma and the establishment hierarchies ( corporations , churches , and some parts of government ) who are benefiting from this self imposed ignorance.America is hit particularly hard by this phenomenon because it 's historically anti-intellectual .
In fact , the only semi-modern country I 'm aware of that shares in the same amount of religious hysteria is Iran.I 'm all for allowing Texas to turn into a theocracy , and leaving individual states to decide their own education .
Texans could then serve as a reminder that marrying religion and state is still an enormously stupid idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's up to the rest of society to fight their corner equally well, in the interests of balance; unfortunately only the fanatics seem to have the energy to do this...Only the fanatics have ideas small enough to fit into thirty second sound bites.
When you've been raised to believe that your parents passed the One And Only Truth to you, and someone says, "God is great!
", it's not going to matter what the other person says, unless you say "Allahu akbar" instead.
You can't even bother your average American to vote once a year, much less examine an issue as complex as the relationship between education, religion, and government.
It's not that the the other side lacks the energy, but they have to fight dogma and the establishment hierarchies (corporations, churches, and some parts of government) who are benefiting from this self imposed ignorance.America is hit particularly hard by this phenomenon because it's historically anti-intellectual.
In fact, the only semi-modern country I'm aware of that shares in the same amount of religious hysteria is Iran.I'm all for allowing Texas to turn into a theocracy, and leaving individual states to decide their own education.
Texans could then serve as a reminder that marrying religion and state is still an enormously stupid idea.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119930</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265971500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>More elementally, they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>False. Many were Freemasons. Quite distinct from Christianity.<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemason#Christianity\_and\_Freemasonry<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Freemasons#H</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>More elementally , they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians ...False .
Many were Freemasons .
Quite distinct from Christianity.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemason # Christianity \ _and \ _Freemasonryhttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _Freemasons # H</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More elementally, they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians ...False.
Many were Freemasons.
Quite distinct from Christianity.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemason#Christianity\_and\_Freemasonryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Freemasons#H
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118334</id>
	<title>One part is true</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265967420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've been lackadaisical when it comes to following stories about Texas schoolboard attempts to slip creationism into biology textbooks, dismissing the stories as just 'dumbass Texans,'</p> </div><p>Yes, bigotry *is* lackadaisical.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been lackadaisical when it comes to following stories about Texas schoolboard attempts to slip creationism into biology textbooks , dismissing the stories as just 'dumbass Texans, ' Yes , bigotry * is * lackadaisical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been lackadaisical when it comes to following stories about Texas schoolboard attempts to slip creationism into biology textbooks, dismissing the stories as just 'dumbass Texans,' Yes, bigotry *is* lackadaisical.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120810</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265974380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By religious, I'm assuming you're referring to "god" and etc and not "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". If you are referring to the latter, then by your concluding sentence, you are of the "religion" of non-religion. So in essence, by not having any "religion" class in public schools, we are implying to all children that "religion" is crap. In high school, I think a "religion" class would be beneficial. Of course good material would be difficult to develop, so let's just go back to telling everyone to be atheist AND telling everyone that they have their right to practice a religion should they "illogically" choose to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By religious , I 'm assuming you 're referring to " god " and etc and not " a cause , principle , or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith " .
If you are referring to the latter , then by your concluding sentence , you are of the " religion " of non-religion .
So in essence , by not having any " religion " class in public schools , we are implying to all children that " religion " is crap .
In high school , I think a " religion " class would be beneficial .
Of course good material would be difficult to develop , so let 's just go back to telling everyone to be atheist AND telling everyone that they have their right to practice a religion should they " illogically " choose to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By religious, I'm assuming you're referring to "god" and etc and not "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".
If you are referring to the latter, then by your concluding sentence, you are of the "religion" of non-religion.
So in essence, by not having any "religion" class in public schools, we are implying to all children that "religion" is crap.
In high school, I think a "religion" class would be beneficial.
Of course good material would be difficult to develop, so let's just go back to telling everyone to be atheist AND telling everyone that they have their right to practice a religion should they "illogically" choose to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31125932</id>
	<title>Re:Does curriculum matter anymore in the Google Ag</title>
	<author>big\_paul76</author>
	<datestamp>1266064140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't Jefferson say something about how an educated population is essential to democracy succeeding?</p><p>Of course, then 30-odd years later De Touqueville predicted that american democracy would succeed, unless elected representatives realized that they can bribe the American people with their own money...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't Jefferson say something about how an educated population is essential to democracy succeeding ? Of course , then 30-odd years later De Touqueville predicted that american democracy would succeed , unless elected representatives realized that they can bribe the American people with their own money.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't Jefferson say something about how an educated population is essential to democracy succeeding?Of course, then 30-odd years later De Touqueville predicted that american democracy would succeed, unless elected representatives realized that they can bribe the American people with their own money...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118578</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265968080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bravo sir. I could not agree more.</p><p>Thus please remove your requirement that I be an atheist and a denier of the christian bible to be a scientist. Atheism is a religion. It's just a religion that says no god exists.</p><p>Stop cramming your religion down my throat.</p><p>We don't know many things. Evolution has many problems, let's honestly bring them out in the open and talk about them, document them, and try to prove things about them one way or the other.</p><p>Any other approach is a faith based system which denies true science. Stop pretending it's not. Science is about questioning our theories and looking for evidence to prove them WRONG. It's the lack of evidence of being wrong over a long period of time that moves a scientific theory towards credibility.</p><p>At some point the proponents of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, and \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ forgot that.</p><p>This is why we know that Darwin was wrong in his original theories of evolution. In fact we are on our 3rd or 4th major revision of what "evolution" is at this point. In fact that's why the books stopped calling it Darwinism, and started calling it evolution. Because Darwin's specific theory was proved wrong, by the very test he proposed for his theory. Now that was good science. Theory, test, conclusion.<br>No one want's to talk about that though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bravo sir .
I could not agree more.Thus please remove your requirement that I be an atheist and a denier of the christian bible to be a scientist .
Atheism is a religion .
It 's just a religion that says no god exists.Stop cramming your religion down my throat.We do n't know many things .
Evolution has many problems , let 's honestly bring them out in the open and talk about them , document them , and try to prove things about them one way or the other.Any other approach is a faith based system which denies true science .
Stop pretending it 's not .
Science is about questioning our theories and looking for evidence to prove them WRONG .
It 's the lack of evidence of being wrong over a long period of time that moves a scientific theory towards credibility.At some point the proponents of \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ , \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ , and \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ forgot that.This is why we know that Darwin was wrong in his original theories of evolution .
In fact we are on our 3rd or 4th major revision of what " evolution " is at this point .
In fact that 's why the books stopped calling it Darwinism , and started calling it evolution .
Because Darwin 's specific theory was proved wrong , by the very test he proposed for his theory .
Now that was good science .
Theory , test , conclusion.No one want 's to talk about that though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bravo sir.
I could not agree more.Thus please remove your requirement that I be an atheist and a denier of the christian bible to be a scientist.
Atheism is a religion.
It's just a religion that says no god exists.Stop cramming your religion down my throat.We don't know many things.
Evolution has many problems, let's honestly bring them out in the open and talk about them, document them, and try to prove things about them one way or the other.Any other approach is a faith based system which denies true science.
Stop pretending it's not.
Science is about questioning our theories and looking for evidence to prove them WRONG.
It's the lack of evidence of being wrong over a long period of time that moves a scientific theory towards credibility.At some point the proponents of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, and \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ forgot that.This is why we know that Darwin was wrong in his original theories of evolution.
In fact we are on our 3rd or 4th major revision of what "evolution" is at this point.
In fact that's why the books stopped calling it Darwinism, and started calling it evolution.
Because Darwin's specific theory was proved wrong, by the very test he proposed for his theory.
Now that was good science.
Theory, test, conclusion.No one want's to talk about that though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117626</id>
	<title>They're fueling the fire</title>
	<author>orient</author>
	<datestamp>1265965560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If american "christians" are right to fight to put into law (public education is governed law, right?) their religious beliefs, then this makes muslim's fight to impose the sharia law equally legitimate.

Christians have no moral authority to impose their faith on others and, by doing so, they incite the other religions to do the same.

And, oh, these texans aren't even christians;  Jesus told his followers to spread the word, not to force the people into worshiping. Also, christians are supposed to turn the other cheek and die for their belief, not to bully others into joining their churchly organisation..</htmltext>
<tokenext>If american " christians " are right to fight to put into law ( public education is governed law , right ?
) their religious beliefs , then this makes muslim 's fight to impose the sharia law equally legitimate .
Christians have no moral authority to impose their faith on others and , by doing so , they incite the other religions to do the same .
And , oh , these texans are n't even christians ; Jesus told his followers to spread the word , not to force the people into worshiping .
Also , christians are supposed to turn the other cheek and die for their belief , not to bully others into joining their churchly organisation. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If american "christians" are right to fight to put into law (public education is governed law, right?
) their religious beliefs, then this makes muslim's fight to impose the sharia law equally legitimate.
Christians have no moral authority to impose their faith on others and, by doing so, they incite the other religions to do the same.
And, oh, these texans aren't even christians;  Jesus told his followers to spread the word, not to force the people into worshiping.
Also, christians are supposed to turn the other cheek and die for their belief, not to bully others into joining their churchly organisation..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120014</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265971800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I note you bolded: "thus building a wall of separation between Church &amp; State."  Unfortunately, your interpretation uses this to say being taught about a religion's belief has no place in school -- this is taking the statement out of context.  A more complete context of the statement is the following:</p><p>"...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church &amp; State." (Preceding in this quote does not change the meaning, unlike the emphasis you chose)</p><p>Where, exactly, in this does it say or even lean to saying that religion can't be taught about in school? (Or that a religious viewpoint can't influence what kids are taught)  You're twisting things as badly as the people you're railing against.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I note you bolded : " thus building a wall of separation between Church &amp; State .
" Unfortunately , your interpretation uses this to say being taught about a religion 's belief has no place in school -- this is taking the statement out of context .
A more complete context of the statement is the following : " ...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should " make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof , " thus building a wall of separation between Church &amp; State .
" ( Preceding in this quote does not change the meaning , unlike the emphasis you chose ) Where , exactly , in this does it say or even lean to saying that religion ca n't be taught about in school ?
( Or that a religious viewpoint ca n't influence what kids are taught ) You 're twisting things as badly as the people you 're railing against .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I note you bolded: "thus building a wall of separation between Church &amp; State.
"  Unfortunately, your interpretation uses this to say being taught about a religion's belief has no place in school -- this is taking the statement out of context.
A more complete context of the statement is the following:"...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church &amp; State.
" (Preceding in this quote does not change the meaning, unlike the emphasis you chose)Where, exactly, in this does it say or even lean to saying that religion can't be taught about in school?
(Or that a religious viewpoint can't influence what kids are taught)  You're twisting things as badly as the people you're railing against.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117798</id>
	<title>Both sides show themselves to be extremists</title>
	<author>sir lox elroy</author>
	<datestamp>1265966040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Both sides of these arguments, and the overall argument have shown themselves to be extremists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both sides of these arguments , and the overall argument have shown themselves to be extremists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both sides of these arguments, and the overall argument have shown themselves to be extremists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119048</id>
	<title>Re:How bad could it be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265969160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not a lot cause they will all be Mexican again in 20 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not a lot cause they will all be Mexican again in 20 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not a lot cause they will all be Mexican again in 20 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117694</id>
	<title>TFS = Flamebait</title>
	<author>CByrd17</author>
	<datestamp>1265965740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can you moderate the summary Flamebait?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you moderate the summary Flamebait ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you moderate the summary Flamebait?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117772</id>
	<title>the main problem</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1265965980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that some local education board wants school books to promote their misleading and unscientific ideology is a small problem, but it's a problem the rest of the country doesn't have too much influence over.</p><p>The fact that this affects the nation as a whole is a big problem. Solution? Stop letting Texas influence national text books.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that some local education board wants school books to promote their misleading and unscientific ideology is a small problem , but it 's a problem the rest of the country does n't have too much influence over.The fact that this affects the nation as a whole is a big problem .
Solution ? Stop letting Texas influence national text books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that some local education board wants school books to promote their misleading and unscientific ideology is a small problem, but it's a problem the rest of the country doesn't have too much influence over.The fact that this affects the nation as a whole is a big problem.
Solution? Stop letting Texas influence national text books.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31123784</id>
	<title>Re:The irony is this...</title>
	<author>civilizedINTENSITY</author>
	<datestamp>1265990640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except that the phrase "living constitution" dates at least back to the early 1930s, and (I believe) to a published book of the same name.  The idea of building a dynamic rather than static core body of laws, I thought, goes all the way back...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that the phrase " living constitution " dates at least back to the early 1930s , and ( I believe ) to a published book of the same name .
The idea of building a dynamic rather than static core body of laws , I thought , goes all the way back.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that the phrase "living constitution" dates at least back to the early 1930s, and (I believe) to a published book of the same name.
The idea of building a dynamic rather than static core body of laws, I thought, goes all the way back...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118000</id>
	<title>Re:Well, 'fair dos' to them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265966700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A "vigorous, forward-looking defense" should not be needed in a country that has the first amendment. Religion is protected here. It should not need a defense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A " vigorous , forward-looking defense " should not be needed in a country that has the first amendment .
Religion is protected here .
It should not need a defense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A "vigorous, forward-looking defense" should not be needed in a country that has the first amendment.
Religion is protected here.
It should not need a defense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122100</id>
	<title>Who cares!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265979840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a high school science teacher and I can say with certainty that nobody cares what textbooks say except old politicians. Teachers are still going to teach whatever the hell they feel like no matter what the book says</p><p>Textbooks for-profit will be gone in a couple decades anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a high school science teacher and I can say with certainty that nobody cares what textbooks say except old politicians .
Teachers are still going to teach whatever the hell they feel like no matter what the book saysTextbooks for-profit will be gone in a couple decades anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a high school science teacher and I can say with certainty that nobody cares what textbooks say except old politicians.
Teachers are still going to teach whatever the hell they feel like no matter what the book saysTextbooks for-profit will be gone in a couple decades anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31123384</id>
	<title>Re:"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>civilizedINTENSITY</author>
	<datestamp>1265987040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well regulated doesn't mean, "well-armed and provided for", but rather it means that it is well controlled.  A lynch mob is NOT a well regulated militia.  A gun club is NOT a well regulated militia.  The US Coast Guard is a well regulated milita.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well regulated does n't mean , " well-armed and provided for " , but rather it means that it is well controlled .
A lynch mob is NOT a well regulated militia .
A gun club is NOT a well regulated militia .
The US Coast Guard is a well regulated milita .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well regulated doesn't mean, "well-armed and provided for", but rather it means that it is well controlled.
A lynch mob is NOT a well regulated militia.
A gun club is NOT a well regulated militia.
The US Coast Guard is a well regulated milita.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117818</id>
	<title>Re:How bad could it be?</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1265966100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what state made him their Governor again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what state made him their Governor again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what state made him their Governor again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31134322</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266161760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um...<br>It's pretty obvious that the Christian view was the primary view of the founding fathers.  Even the Thomas Paine (the guy who everyone says was an atheist) uses Biblical history in Common Sense.</p><p>As far as Separation of Church and State, if you actually understand what he's saying it takes on a whole new meaning.  Most people would flee Europe because the state had their own approved religion that was sanctioned by the state.  China has this sort of thing right now; they have a place for religion, right where they want it, believing what they tell the leaders to believe and completely controlled by the state.  This is why the people of America did not want the government to "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof".</p><p>The blatant ignorance shown in our "modern society where people don't need gods" is so funny it's sickening.  It's not like there's a movement that's been proven to be wrong scientifically, purely politically motivated to control every aspect of your life and disregards every right or freedom in hope to save the planet...  But don't worry, someone who knocks on your door and asks if you know where you're going when you die is the REAL thing to fear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um...It 's pretty obvious that the Christian view was the primary view of the founding fathers .
Even the Thomas Paine ( the guy who everyone says was an atheist ) uses Biblical history in Common Sense.As far as Separation of Church and State , if you actually understand what he 's saying it takes on a whole new meaning .
Most people would flee Europe because the state had their own approved religion that was sanctioned by the state .
China has this sort of thing right now ; they have a place for religion , right where they want it , believing what they tell the leaders to believe and completely controlled by the state .
This is why the people of America did not want the government to " make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise therof " .The blatant ignorance shown in our " modern society where people do n't need gods " is so funny it 's sickening .
It 's not like there 's a movement that 's been proven to be wrong scientifically , purely politically motivated to control every aspect of your life and disregards every right or freedom in hope to save the planet... But do n't worry , someone who knocks on your door and asks if you know where you 're going when you die is the REAL thing to fear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um...It's pretty obvious that the Christian view was the primary view of the founding fathers.
Even the Thomas Paine (the guy who everyone says was an atheist) uses Biblical history in Common Sense.As far as Separation of Church and State, if you actually understand what he's saying it takes on a whole new meaning.
Most people would flee Europe because the state had their own approved religion that was sanctioned by the state.
China has this sort of thing right now; they have a place for religion, right where they want it, believing what they tell the leaders to believe and completely controlled by the state.
This is why the people of America did not want the government to "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof".The blatant ignorance shown in our "modern society where people don't need gods" is so funny it's sickening.
It's not like there's a movement that's been proven to be wrong scientifically, purely politically motivated to control every aspect of your life and disregards every right or freedom in hope to save the planet...  But don't worry, someone who knocks on your door and asks if you know where you're going when you die is the REAL thing to fear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119722</id>
	<title>Re:Refreshing!</title>
	<author>amilo100</author>
	<datestamp>1265970900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The new atheist zealotry is a lot scarier for me than christian zealotry. I don&rsquo;t know what exactly makes 20 y/o atheists so angry (must be something in the drink water). But there ideas are extremely frightening. <br> <br>

(They also have the ability to destroy any social site with their verbal diarrhoea I really don&rsquo;t need to hear how smart atheists are. ) <br> <br>

It seems that my Christian friends STFU 99.99\% of the time about their religion. But atheists talk 90\% of the time about their religion. They repeat everything and every conversation is a repeat of the previous - It sounds like a long play record that got stuck. They also interrogate you to ensure that you are an atheist (and not an agnostic by mistake). <br> <br>

\rant</htmltext>
<tokenext>The new atheist zealotry is a lot scarier for me than christian zealotry .
I don    t know what exactly makes 20 y/o atheists so angry ( must be something in the drink water ) .
But there ideas are extremely frightening .
( They also have the ability to destroy any social site with their verbal diarrhoea I really don    t need to hear how smart atheists are .
) It seems that my Christian friends STFU 99.99 \ % of the time about their religion .
But atheists talk 90 \ % of the time about their religion .
They repeat everything and every conversation is a repeat of the previous - It sounds like a long play record that got stuck .
They also interrogate you to ensure that you are an atheist ( and not an agnostic by mistake ) .
\ rant</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The new atheist zealotry is a lot scarier for me than christian zealotry.
I don’t know what exactly makes 20 y/o atheists so angry (must be something in the drink water).
But there ideas are extremely frightening.
(They also have the ability to destroy any social site with their verbal diarrhoea I really don’t need to hear how smart atheists are.
)  

It seems that my Christian friends STFU 99.99\% of the time about their religion.
But atheists talk 90\% of the time about their religion.
They repeat everything and every conversation is a repeat of the previous - It sounds like a long play record that got stuck.
They also interrogate you to ensure that you are an atheist (and not an agnostic by mistake).
\rant</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120458</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265973240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why do ignorant people that one statement by Jefferson and try to make it stand on it's own completely out of context to prove all our founders hated religion. You really should read the other thousands of letters and documents Jefferson wrote to understand the situation. Understand history before you try to change it you fucking retard.</p></div></blockquote><p>You lied about what eldavojohn was saying, because you knew that you are not competent to refute what he actually said.  No other reason is possible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do ignorant people that one statement by Jefferson and try to make it stand on it 's own completely out of context to prove all our founders hated religion .
You really should read the other thousands of letters and documents Jefferson wrote to understand the situation .
Understand history before you try to change it you fucking retard.You lied about what eldavojohn was saying , because you knew that you are not competent to refute what he actually said .
No other reason is possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do ignorant people that one statement by Jefferson and try to make it stand on it's own completely out of context to prove all our founders hated religion.
You really should read the other thousands of letters and documents Jefferson wrote to understand the situation.
Understand history before you try to change it you fucking retard.You lied about what eldavojohn was saying, because you knew that you are not competent to refute what he actually said.
No other reason is possible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120742</id>
	<title>Save us California</title>
	<author>laughingskeptic</author>
	<datestamp>1265974200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If California wrote a law that automatically rejected any textbook accepted by Texas, then there would be at least 2 choices for the rest of the country.  It would be entertaining at least to try and get a law like this passed.  Who is going to stand up and defend the Texas process in California?  It is also possible to generate open source text books and convince states that these are worthy of formal acceptance.  Getting a nobel laureate to sign up as one of the editors of your open source textbook would probably grease the acceptance process.  The great thing about an open source textbook is that the final product is much more that just a book.  It would also come with the accumulated discussions as to how it reached its final form and its evolution over time would be visible.  California has started this with one World History textbook and has (apparently very modest) plans to expand this to their full curiculum.  <a href="http://opensourcetext.org/index.htm" title="opensourcetext.org" rel="nofollow">California Open Source Textbook Project </a> [opensourcetext.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>If California wrote a law that automatically rejected any textbook accepted by Texas , then there would be at least 2 choices for the rest of the country .
It would be entertaining at least to try and get a law like this passed .
Who is going to stand up and defend the Texas process in California ?
It is also possible to generate open source text books and convince states that these are worthy of formal acceptance .
Getting a nobel laureate to sign up as one of the editors of your open source textbook would probably grease the acceptance process .
The great thing about an open source textbook is that the final product is much more that just a book .
It would also come with the accumulated discussions as to how it reached its final form and its evolution over time would be visible .
California has started this with one World History textbook and has ( apparently very modest ) plans to expand this to their full curiculum .
California Open Source Textbook Project [ opensourcetext.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If California wrote a law that automatically rejected any textbook accepted by Texas, then there would be at least 2 choices for the rest of the country.
It would be entertaining at least to try and get a law like this passed.
Who is going to stand up and defend the Texas process in California?
It is also possible to generate open source text books and convince states that these are worthy of formal acceptance.
Getting a nobel laureate to sign up as one of the editors of your open source textbook would probably grease the acceptance process.
The great thing about an open source textbook is that the final product is much more that just a book.
It would also come with the accumulated discussions as to how it reached its final form and its evolution over time would be visible.
California has started this with one World History textbook and has (apparently very modest) plans to expand this to their full curiculum.
California Open Source Textbook Project  [opensourcetext.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31125464</id>
	<title>Re:The irony is this...</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1266056400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My 1970s textbooks in grade school and high school went out of their way to define progress as a big march to the nanny state..</p></div><p>Given your demonstrated extreme biases, and ability to interpret almost anything as a leftist plot, no matter how benign; I'm going to conclude that this is a falsehood.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My 1970s textbooks in grade school and high school went out of their way to define progress as a big march to the nanny state..Given your demonstrated extreme biases , and ability to interpret almost anything as a leftist plot , no matter how benign ; I 'm going to conclude that this is a falsehood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My 1970s textbooks in grade school and high school went out of their way to define progress as a big march to the nanny state..Given your demonstrated extreme biases, and ability to interpret almost anything as a leftist plot, no matter how benign; I'm going to conclude that this is a falsehood.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122110</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>curri</author>
	<datestamp>1265979900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While the article is a bit biased as well as the people it covers, a lot of the things these people tout amount to plain ignorance.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>More elementally, they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>True.</p><p>NOT quite; it was founded by many people, many (most ? ) of them being devout Christians but NOT all;</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While the article is a bit biased as well as the people it covers , a lot of the things these people tout amount to plain ignorance.More elementally , they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians ...True.NOT quite ; it was founded by many people , many ( most ?
) of them being devout Christians but NOT all ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the article is a bit biased as well as the people it covers, a lot of the things these people tout amount to plain ignorance.More elementally, they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians ...True.NOT quite; it was founded by many people, many (most ?
) of them being devout Christians but NOT all;
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119296</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing new here</title>
	<author>SgtPepperKSU</author>
	<datestamp>1265969820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why would anyone on either side have the least fear of having the other side presented [in Science class]?</p></div><p>I fear that it will produce people (eg, you) that confuse science and philosophy.  They are <i>very</i> different subjects and shouldn't be conflated.</p><p>The fact that I believe that the currently presiding Theory of Evolution more accurately explains the observational fact that evolution exists has no bearing on that.</p><p>Even if Intelligent Design (Creationism) is 100\% accurate, it should be taught in a philosophy course (I took a philosophy of religion course in college and rather enjoyed it).  When you start presenting unscientific ideas as science, you begin on a path that results in nothing but people unable to produce (or even discern) logical ideas.</p><p>I think that is a very rational reason for "fear" of this type of thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would anyone on either side have the least fear of having the other side presented [ in Science class ] ? I fear that it will produce people ( eg , you ) that confuse science and philosophy .
They are very different subjects and should n't be conflated.The fact that I believe that the currently presiding Theory of Evolution more accurately explains the observational fact that evolution exists has no bearing on that.Even if Intelligent Design ( Creationism ) is 100 \ % accurate , it should be taught in a philosophy course ( I took a philosophy of religion course in college and rather enjoyed it ) .
When you start presenting unscientific ideas as science , you begin on a path that results in nothing but people unable to produce ( or even discern ) logical ideas.I think that is a very rational reason for " fear " of this type of thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would anyone on either side have the least fear of having the other side presented [in Science class]?I fear that it will produce people (eg, you) that confuse science and philosophy.
They are very different subjects and shouldn't be conflated.The fact that I believe that the currently presiding Theory of Evolution more accurately explains the observational fact that evolution exists has no bearing on that.Even if Intelligent Design (Creationism) is 100\% accurate, it should be taught in a philosophy course (I took a philosophy of religion course in college and rather enjoyed it).
When you start presenting unscientific ideas as science, you begin on a path that results in nothing but people unable to produce (or even discern) logical ideas.I think that is a very rational reason for "fear" of this type of thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117568</id>
	<title>Most publishers make two different editions</title>
	<author>XxtraLarGe</author>
	<datestamp>1265965380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Part of my job entails uploading publisher content into our learning management system. They provided you with two different sets of content in most books, one a national edition, the other a Texas edition. This is done mostly in science, history &amp; political science courses, but there have been many others as well. We simply use the national edition, problem solved.<br> <br>
On another note, describing the Constitution as a "living document" is basically the way for some people to say "The Constitution means whatever we want it to mean". In other words, the Constitution doesn't mean anything unless it helps them to further their political agenda. It is true that the constitution can be amended, but that doesn't make it a "living document".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of my job entails uploading publisher content into our learning management system .
They provided you with two different sets of content in most books , one a national edition , the other a Texas edition .
This is done mostly in science , history &amp; political science courses , but there have been many others as well .
We simply use the national edition , problem solved .
On another note , describing the Constitution as a " living document " is basically the way for some people to say " The Constitution means whatever we want it to mean " .
In other words , the Constitution does n't mean anything unless it helps them to further their political agenda .
It is true that the constitution can be amended , but that does n't make it a " living document " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of my job entails uploading publisher content into our learning management system.
They provided you with two different sets of content in most books, one a national edition, the other a Texas edition.
This is done mostly in science, history &amp; political science courses, but there have been many others as well.
We simply use the national edition, problem solved.
On another note, describing the Constitution as a "living document" is basically the way for some people to say "The Constitution means whatever we want it to mean".
In other words, the Constitution doesn't mean anything unless it helps them to further their political agenda.
It is true that the constitution can be amended, but that doesn't make it a "living document".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122532</id>
	<title>Re:Second millennium Muslim civ, quit following</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265981820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Is there any reason we have to let them set the standard, or is it a combination of laziness and their purchasing power?"</p><p>AFAIK, school books in the US are under revision every couple of years and publishers are not willing to provide multiple versions of books unless there's a clear financial reason for them to do so. The reason Texas has such a large stake right now is because the only big state that used to provide a counter-view to Texas was California, which is in some financial trouble and isn't acquiring books at this time.</p><p>I may be mistaken in some of this. I'm not a US citizen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Is there any reason we have to let them set the standard , or is it a combination of laziness and their purchasing power ?
" AFAIK , school books in the US are under revision every couple of years and publishers are not willing to provide multiple versions of books unless there 's a clear financial reason for them to do so .
The reason Texas has such a large stake right now is because the only big state that used to provide a counter-view to Texas was California , which is in some financial trouble and is n't acquiring books at this time.I may be mistaken in some of this .
I 'm not a US citizen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Is there any reason we have to let them set the standard, or is it a combination of laziness and their purchasing power?
"AFAIK, school books in the US are under revision every couple of years and publishers are not willing to provide multiple versions of books unless there's a clear financial reason for them to do so.
The reason Texas has such a large stake right now is because the only big state that used to provide a counter-view to Texas was California, which is in some financial trouble and isn't acquiring books at this time.I may be mistaken in some of this.
I'm not a US citizen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118034</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265966760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jeez, I read your post and thought your first line summed up your own understanding of US History.  You seem both ignorant and arrogant, a deadly combination.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jeez , I read your post and thought your first line summed up your own understanding of US History .
You seem both ignorant and arrogant , a deadly combination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jeez, I read your post and thought your first line summed up your own understanding of US History.
You seem both ignorant and arrogant, a deadly combination.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119360</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265970060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>All men and women are created equal.  Everyone has a right to practice what religion they so choose.  So keep your religious crap out of our public schools.</p></div><p>It bothers me that people who profess a religious preference try to push their point of view on others.  I'm equally bothered by those professing an agnostic or atheistic point of view trying to push their preferences for a godless world on others.</p><p>I agree that we shouldn't be spreading religious propaganda in the public schools, but we should also not be spreading atheistic or anti-religious propaganda in schools either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All men and women are created equal .
Everyone has a right to practice what religion they so choose .
So keep your religious crap out of our public schools.It bothers me that people who profess a religious preference try to push their point of view on others .
I 'm equally bothered by those professing an agnostic or atheistic point of view trying to push their preferences for a godless world on others.I agree that we should n't be spreading religious propaganda in the public schools , but we should also not be spreading atheistic or anti-religious propaganda in schools either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All men and women are created equal.
Everyone has a right to practice what religion they so choose.
So keep your religious crap out of our public schools.It bothers me that people who profess a religious preference try to push their point of view on others.
I'm equally bothered by those professing an agnostic or atheistic point of view trying to push their preferences for a godless world on others.I agree that we shouldn't be spreading religious propaganda in the public schools, but we should also not be spreading atheistic or anti-religious propaganda in schools either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120610</id>
	<title>Eat religious people.</title>
	<author>Singularity42</author>
	<datestamp>1265973720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Religious people are animals who don't even think they are animals.  What better way to treat them than by eating them like you would any other animal?  When they see clearly that they are nutritious, maybe they'll get the point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Religious people are animals who do n't even think they are animals .
What better way to treat them than by eating them like you would any other animal ?
When they see clearly that they are nutritious , maybe they 'll get the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Religious people are animals who don't even think they are animals.
What better way to treat them than by eating them like you would any other animal?
When they see clearly that they are nutritious, maybe they'll get the point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31128822</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>Danse</author>
	<datestamp>1266090600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's fine, let's take everything that can't be scientifically verified out.  Whoops, there goes <b>macro</b>evolution*.  Whoops, there goes <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws\_of\_thermodynamics" title="wikipedia.org">the big bang</a> [wikipedia.org].  Whoops, there goes the <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101245.htm" title="sciencedaily.com">primordial soup</a> [sciencedaily.com].</p><p>Look, the science for all of this stuff hasn't been figured out yet.  Let's take the religion out, because we don't know if it's correct or not.  So let's also take out the science that keeps getting revised until it's nice and definite.  And what if it isn't definite and never will be?  Too freakin' bad - you put down what is known and leave the rest empty!</p><p>Oh?  What's that? You want to put in some theories anyway?  Hey, how about this!  You put in a few alternate theories, and you <b>label them as theories</b>.</p><p>*note that I'm not talking about the adaptation of bacteria or the expressing/repressing of genes.</p></div><p>When you actually come up with a <i> <b>scientific</b> </i> theory for I.D. or whatever you want to call creationism, and have even a reasonable fraction of the evidence we have for evolution (yes, <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/" title="talkorigins.org">even macro</a> [talkorigins.org]) that hasn't been disproved, then sure, I could see the argument for including that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's fine , let 's take everything that ca n't be scientifically verified out .
Whoops , there goes macroevolution * .
Whoops , there goes the big bang [ wikipedia.org ] .
Whoops , there goes the primordial soup [ sciencedaily.com ] .Look , the science for all of this stuff has n't been figured out yet .
Let 's take the religion out , because we do n't know if it 's correct or not .
So let 's also take out the science that keeps getting revised until it 's nice and definite .
And what if it is n't definite and never will be ?
Too freakin ' bad - you put down what is known and leave the rest empty ! Oh ?
What 's that ?
You want to put in some theories anyway ?
Hey , how about this !
You put in a few alternate theories , and you label them as theories .
* note that I 'm not talking about the adaptation of bacteria or the expressing/repressing of genes.When you actually come up with a scientific theory for I.D .
or whatever you want to call creationism , and have even a reasonable fraction of the evidence we have for evolution ( yes , even macro [ talkorigins.org ] ) that has n't been disproved , then sure , I could see the argument for including that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's fine, let's take everything that can't be scientifically verified out.
Whoops, there goes macroevolution*.
Whoops, there goes the big bang [wikipedia.org].
Whoops, there goes the primordial soup [sciencedaily.com].Look, the science for all of this stuff hasn't been figured out yet.
Let's take the religion out, because we don't know if it's correct or not.
So let's also take out the science that keeps getting revised until it's nice and definite.
And what if it isn't definite and never will be?
Too freakin' bad - you put down what is known and leave the rest empty!Oh?
What's that?
You want to put in some theories anyway?
Hey, how about this!
You put in a few alternate theories, and you label them as theories.
*note that I'm not talking about the adaptation of bacteria or the expressing/repressing of genes.When you actually come up with a  scientific  theory for I.D.
or whatever you want to call creationism, and have even a reasonable fraction of the evidence we have for evolution (yes, even macro [talkorigins.org]) that hasn't been disproved, then sure, I could see the argument for including that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122962</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1265984160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>By your logic, forcing God out of public school is same as establishing the religion of atheism.</i></p><p>Atheism is a religion the way that bald is a hair color.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By your logic , forcing God out of public school is same as establishing the religion of atheism.Atheism is a religion the way that bald is a hair color .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By your logic, forcing God out of public school is same as establishing the religion of atheism.Atheism is a religion the way that bald is a hair color.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119674</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone Gets Their Own Truth Now</title>
	<author>metachimp</author>
	<datestamp>1265970780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing as wacky as comparing the scientific method to animism.  The two things have nothing to do with each other.  My wife is a former middle school teacher, and I can assure you that the situation you describe does not exist.</p><p>Science classes still teach the same old scientific method, and there's no mention of religious belief systems (yet).  I was looking through one of the history texts she taught, and discovered that it was more or less the same as the ones I had way back when.  The situations you describe only exist, I'm afraid, in your mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing as wacky as comparing the scientific method to animism .
The two things have nothing to do with each other .
My wife is a former middle school teacher , and I can assure you that the situation you describe does not exist.Science classes still teach the same old scientific method , and there 's no mention of religious belief systems ( yet ) .
I was looking through one of the history texts she taught , and discovered that it was more or less the same as the ones I had way back when .
The situations you describe only exist , I 'm afraid , in your mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing as wacky as comparing the scientific method to animism.
The two things have nothing to do with each other.
My wife is a former middle school teacher, and I can assure you that the situation you describe does not exist.Science classes still teach the same old scientific method, and there's no mention of religious belief systems (yet).
I was looking through one of the history texts she taught, and discovered that it was more or less the same as the ones I had way back when.
The situations you describe only exist, I'm afraid, in your mind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31125758</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>chrb</author>
	<datestamp>1266061800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>More elementally, they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>True</p></div><p> <b>devout?</b></p><p>The Christian God is a being of terrific character- cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust</p><p>-Thomas Jefferson</p><p>Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone upon man</p><p>-Thomas Jefferson</p><p>During fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been it its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolences in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution</p><p>-James Madison</p><p>Lighthouses are more useful than churches</p><p>-Benjamin Franklin</p><p>This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it</p><p>-John Adams</p><p>As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how it has happened that millions of fables, tales, legends have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed</p><p>-John Adams</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>More elementally , they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians ...True devout ? The Christian God is a being of terrific character- cruel , vindictive , capricious and unjust-Thomas JeffersonChristianity is the most perverted system that ever shone upon man-Thomas JeffersonDuring fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial .
What has been it its fruits ?
More or less , in all places , pride and indolences in the clergy , ignorance and servility in the laity in both , superstition , bigotry and persecution-James MadisonLighthouses are more useful than churches-Benjamin FranklinThis would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it-John AdamsAs I understand the Christian religion , it was , and is , a revelation .
But how it has happened that millions of fables , tales , legends have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed-John Adams</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More elementally, they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians ...True devout?The Christian God is a being of terrific character- cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust-Thomas JeffersonChristianity is the most perverted system that ever shone upon man-Thomas JeffersonDuring fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial.
What has been it its fruits?
More or less, in all places, pride and indolences in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution-James MadisonLighthouses are more useful than churches-Benjamin FranklinThis would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it-John AdamsAs I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation.
But how it has happened that millions of fables, tales, legends have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed-John Adams
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121256</id>
	<title>Re:Open it up!</title>
	<author>ChrisMounce</author>
	<datestamp>1265975940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"textbooks should be free/open source [...] all schoolchildren own iPads or other e-readers"<br><br>I like the idea, but I fear it is unlikely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" textbooks should be free/open source [ ... ] all schoolchildren own iPads or other e-readers " I like the idea , but I fear it is unlikely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"textbooks should be free/open source [...] all schoolchildren own iPads or other e-readers"I like the idea, but I fear it is unlikely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117408</id>
	<title>Seeing a problem and missing the point.</title>
	<author>J. T. MacLeod</author>
	<datestamp>1266008100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Regardless of "academic qualification" (Most people with the paper don't have the ethical or logical capability to be truly considered qualified), the Texas school board was responding to its own concerns about the insertion of bias into textbooks.</p><p>Textbooks are already biased.  How many people are around that are willing to stand against bias in ALL directions?  I'm sick of bickering between defining "unbiased" as "suiting my own personal bias".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless of " academic qualification " ( Most people with the paper do n't have the ethical or logical capability to be truly considered qualified ) , the Texas school board was responding to its own concerns about the insertion of bias into textbooks.Textbooks are already biased .
How many people are around that are willing to stand against bias in ALL directions ?
I 'm sick of bickering between defining " unbiased " as " suiting my own personal bias " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless of "academic qualification" (Most people with the paper don't have the ethical or logical capability to be truly considered qualified), the Texas school board was responding to its own concerns about the insertion of bias into textbooks.Textbooks are already biased.
How many people are around that are willing to stand against bias in ALL directions?
I'm sick of bickering between defining "unbiased" as "suiting my own personal bias".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31132562</id>
	<title>Re:Dominionism at play</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266084540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dominionist here. Also not a native speaker of English. Kind of ironic given what my next statement will be. Your definition is wrong. Dominionism is about taking dominion over everything, not just politics. (The term dominionism is taken from the dominion mandate. See Genesis 1:28-30 to get an idea about what it's about) When a researcher works to reverse engineer nature he is doing dominion work. When a worker takes a part of nature (say sand) and turns it into something useful (say a CPU) he is also doing dominion work. The same when a composer subdues sounds into music. The Bible teaches how to take dominion the right way, for the right reasons etc.</p><p>What you label dominionism is simply common sense. If God is then who are we to say that the laws we have imagined are better that the laws He gave us? Have he not imagined us? Who are we to claim to be wiser than He? You can believe this and still not be a dominionist. Take for example the old school fundamentalists. They believed that there was no point in exercising dominion since the rest of the world (of course including every state) was under the control of Satan and would remain so until judgment day. (They worked to put food on the table, not to exercise dominion) Still they believed that the world was evil for violating Gods commandments. (I'm not claiming that traditional fundamentalist would want to apply Old Testament Law to the USA even if they hadn't believed that the world was Satan's. They believe The Law was limited to Israel. But they would still fall under your definition of "dominionist" since they put the part of Biblical moral they still had over mans law)</p><p>Dominionists are by the way very interested in building up the thinking skills in our children. That is after all the only way they can stand against the indoctrination from society that surrounds them. Not to mention that they will need them to take dominion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dominionist here .
Also not a native speaker of English .
Kind of ironic given what my next statement will be .
Your definition is wrong .
Dominionism is about taking dominion over everything , not just politics .
( The term dominionism is taken from the dominion mandate .
See Genesis 1 : 28-30 to get an idea about what it 's about ) When a researcher works to reverse engineer nature he is doing dominion work .
When a worker takes a part of nature ( say sand ) and turns it into something useful ( say a CPU ) he is also doing dominion work .
The same when a composer subdues sounds into music .
The Bible teaches how to take dominion the right way , for the right reasons etc.What you label dominionism is simply common sense .
If God is then who are we to say that the laws we have imagined are better that the laws He gave us ?
Have he not imagined us ?
Who are we to claim to be wiser than He ?
You can believe this and still not be a dominionist .
Take for example the old school fundamentalists .
They believed that there was no point in exercising dominion since the rest of the world ( of course including every state ) was under the control of Satan and would remain so until judgment day .
( They worked to put food on the table , not to exercise dominion ) Still they believed that the world was evil for violating Gods commandments .
( I 'm not claiming that traditional fundamentalist would want to apply Old Testament Law to the USA even if they had n't believed that the world was Satan 's .
They believe The Law was limited to Israel .
But they would still fall under your definition of " dominionist " since they put the part of Biblical moral they still had over mans law ) Dominionists are by the way very interested in building up the thinking skills in our children .
That is after all the only way they can stand against the indoctrination from society that surrounds them .
Not to mention that they will need them to take dominion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dominionist here.
Also not a native speaker of English.
Kind of ironic given what my next statement will be.
Your definition is wrong.
Dominionism is about taking dominion over everything, not just politics.
(The term dominionism is taken from the dominion mandate.
See Genesis 1:28-30 to get an idea about what it's about) When a researcher works to reverse engineer nature he is doing dominion work.
When a worker takes a part of nature (say sand) and turns it into something useful (say a CPU) he is also doing dominion work.
The same when a composer subdues sounds into music.
The Bible teaches how to take dominion the right way, for the right reasons etc.What you label dominionism is simply common sense.
If God is then who are we to say that the laws we have imagined are better that the laws He gave us?
Have he not imagined us?
Who are we to claim to be wiser than He?
You can believe this and still not be a dominionist.
Take for example the old school fundamentalists.
They believed that there was no point in exercising dominion since the rest of the world (of course including every state) was under the control of Satan and would remain so until judgment day.
(They worked to put food on the table, not to exercise dominion) Still they believed that the world was evil for violating Gods commandments.
(I'm not claiming that traditional fundamentalist would want to apply Old Testament Law to the USA even if they hadn't believed that the world was Satan's.
They believe The Law was limited to Israel.
But they would still fall under your definition of "dominionist" since they put the part of Biblical moral they still had over mans law)Dominionists are by the way very interested in building up the thinking skills in our children.
That is after all the only way they can stand against the indoctrination from society that surrounds them.
Not to mention that they will need them to take dominion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119938</id>
	<title>Responsibility of the parent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265971560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All education is indoctrination. All communication is manipulation.</p><p>The Government should not be trusted to raise our children.</p><p>And for all you "spaghetti monster" believers, the parents have the right and the responsibility to raise their children how they see fit. Teach what you believe; not what someone else does. It's called freedom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All education is indoctrination .
All communication is manipulation.The Government should not be trusted to raise our children.And for all you " spaghetti monster " believers , the parents have the right and the responsibility to raise their children how they see fit .
Teach what you believe ; not what someone else does .
It 's called freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All education is indoctrination.
All communication is manipulation.The Government should not be trusted to raise our children.And for all you "spaghetti monster" believers, the parents have the right and the responsibility to raise their children how they see fit.
Teach what you believe; not what someone else does.
It's called freedom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916</id>
	<title>Re:"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265966400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I assume you're referring to the 2nd amendment, which reads:</p><p>"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."</p><p>Open to interpretation has been "Arms" (does the Constitution guarantee a fundamental right for all US citizens to wield personal nuclear weapons?  Where is the limit?), "well regulated Militia" (are the rights specified in relation to a militia or an individual?), "bear Arms" (this phrase historically means to be part of an army; does this amendment protect your right to join a militia, or apply to individuals acting alone?), and even "infringed" (does requiring assault weapon owners to register count as "infringement"?)</p><p>Many feel that the original intent of this amendment was to maintain a national defense by way of individual gun ownership, and that the right to bear arms implies the right to take your personal gun and join the militia when the nation is threatened.  Having a personal right to go buy a fully automatic assault rifle and fire it off in your backyard isn't part of this amendment.  There have been several instances of "judicial activism" which has expanded the meaning of this amendment over the centuries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume you 're referring to the 2nd amendment , which reads : " A well regulated Militia , being necessary to the security of a free State , the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed .
" Open to interpretation has been " Arms " ( does the Constitution guarantee a fundamental right for all US citizens to wield personal nuclear weapons ?
Where is the limit ?
) , " well regulated Militia " ( are the rights specified in relation to a militia or an individual ?
) , " bear Arms " ( this phrase historically means to be part of an army ; does this amendment protect your right to join a militia , or apply to individuals acting alone ?
) , and even " infringed " ( does requiring assault weapon owners to register count as " infringement " ?
) Many feel that the original intent of this amendment was to maintain a national defense by way of individual gun ownership , and that the right to bear arms implies the right to take your personal gun and join the militia when the nation is threatened .
Having a personal right to go buy a fully automatic assault rifle and fire it off in your backyard is n't part of this amendment .
There have been several instances of " judicial activism " which has expanded the meaning of this amendment over the centuries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume you're referring to the 2nd amendment, which reads:"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
"Open to interpretation has been "Arms" (does the Constitution guarantee a fundamental right for all US citizens to wield personal nuclear weapons?
Where is the limit?
), "well regulated Militia" (are the rights specified in relation to a militia or an individual?
), "bear Arms" (this phrase historically means to be part of an army; does this amendment protect your right to join a militia, or apply to individuals acting alone?
), and even "infringed" (does requiring assault weapon owners to register count as "infringement"?
)Many feel that the original intent of this amendment was to maintain a national defense by way of individual gun ownership, and that the right to bear arms implies the right to take your personal gun and join the militia when the nation is threatened.
Having a personal right to go buy a fully automatic assault rifle and fire it off in your backyard isn't part of this amendment.
There have been several instances of "judicial activism" which has expanded the meaning of this amendment over the centuries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118360</id>
	<title>Re:A note for Christians and Atheists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265967480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait a minute.. No one said anything about banning religion.  This argument is intentionally absurd and doesn't make any relevant point.  The question is whether religious zealots should be allowed to modify historical and scientific texts to suit their agenda.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait a minute.. No one said anything about banning religion .
This argument is intentionally absurd and does n't make any relevant point .
The question is whether religious zealots should be allowed to modify historical and scientific texts to suit their agenda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait a minute.. No one said anything about banning religion.
This argument is intentionally absurd and doesn't make any relevant point.
The question is whether religious zealots should be allowed to modify historical and scientific texts to suit their agenda.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118612</id>
	<title>Re:children at risk</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1265968140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If one is not able to build faith in a child, then ones options are limited.</p> </div><p>When did building religious faith become the responsibilty of the State? When did it cease being the sole responsibility of the parents?</p><p>And the parents do not need to use the State to enforce their beliefs and do not need to shield the child from the un-believing world, but should help the child grow in their faith and explain the world to them. Knowlege is no enemy; ignorance is. After all, God knows <i>everything</i> and He still believes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If one is not able to build faith in a child , then ones options are limited .
When did building religious faith become the responsibilty of the State ?
When did it cease being the sole responsibility of the parents ? And the parents do not need to use the State to enforce their beliefs and do not need to shield the child from the un-believing world , but should help the child grow in their faith and explain the world to them .
Knowlege is no enemy ; ignorance is .
After all , God knows everything and He still believes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If one is not able to build faith in a child, then ones options are limited.
When did building religious faith become the responsibilty of the State?
When did it cease being the sole responsibility of the parents?And the parents do not need to use the State to enforce their beliefs and do not need to shield the child from the un-believing world, but should help the child grow in their faith and explain the world to them.
Knowlege is no enemy; ignorance is.
After all, God knows everything and He still believes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122996</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1265984280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't found much about ancient Israel/Judea in <i>The Federalist Papers</i>, but there are references to classical and European history.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't found much about ancient Israel/Judea in The Federalist Papers , but there are references to classical and European history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't found much about ancient Israel/Judea in The Federalist Papers, but there are references to classical and European history.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117608</id>
	<title>fact based</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265965500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has been going on in Texas for years. Creationists always try, and they always fail. We have a little criteria our courts use that's called "Fact based". It's saved us time &amp; time again from the rampant stupidity of Evangelicals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has been going on in Texas for years .
Creationists always try , and they always fail .
We have a little criteria our courts use that 's called " Fact based " .
It 's saved us time &amp; time again from the rampant stupidity of Evangelicals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has been going on in Texas for years.
Creationists always try, and they always fail.
We have a little criteria our courts use that's called "Fact based".
It's saved us time &amp; time again from the rampant stupidity of Evangelicals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31182890</id>
	<title>Re:How bad could it be?</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1266500580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It always strikes me as funny when people try to claim GW was uneducated or a moron yet he graduated from Yale and Harvard. </i></p><p>Yes, you are funny.  George Bush got through school the same way he was handed top executive positions in business ventures despite running them into the ground.  It's the same reason his brother Neil was paid <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/25/bush.brother.reut/" title="cnn.com">handsomely</a> [cnn.com] by a semiconductor company despite knowing jack about the industry:</p><blockquote><div><p>"You have absolutely no educational background in semiconductors do you?" asked Brown.</p><p>"That's correct," Bush, 48, responded in the March 4 deposition, a transcript of which was read by Reuters after the Houston Chronicle first reported on the documents.</p><p>"And you have absolutely over the last 10, 15, 20 years not a lot of demonstrable business experience that would bring about a company investing $2 million in you?"</p><p>"I personally would object to the assumption that they're investing $2 million in me," said Bush, who went on to explain that he knew a lot about business and had been working in Asia for years.</p></div> </blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and had hot women knock on his door at night, who just happened to want to have sex with him:</p><blockquote><div><p>The women, he said, simply knocked on the door of his hotel room, entered and had sex with him. He said he did not know if they were prostitutes because they never asked for money and he did not pay them.</p><p>"Mr. Bush, you have to admit it's a pretty remarkable thing for a man just to go to a hotel room door and open it and have a woman standing there and have sex with her," Brown said.</p><p>"It was very unusual," Bush said.</p></div> </blockquote><p>To borrow Clinton's line on the economy....<b>it's the last name, stupid</b>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It always strikes me as funny when people try to claim GW was uneducated or a moron yet he graduated from Yale and Harvard .
Yes , you are funny .
George Bush got through school the same way he was handed top executive positions in business ventures despite running them into the ground .
It 's the same reason his brother Neil was paid handsomely [ cnn.com ] by a semiconductor company despite knowing jack about the industry : " You have absolutely no educational background in semiconductors do you ?
" asked Brown .
" That 's correct , " Bush , 48 , responded in the March 4 deposition , a transcript of which was read by Reuters after the Houston Chronicle first reported on the documents .
" And you have absolutely over the last 10 , 15 , 20 years not a lot of demonstrable business experience that would bring about a company investing $ 2 million in you ?
" " I personally would object to the assumption that they 're investing $ 2 million in me , " said Bush , who went on to explain that he knew a lot about business and had been working in Asia for years .
...and had hot women knock on his door at night , who just happened to want to have sex with him : The women , he said , simply knocked on the door of his hotel room , entered and had sex with him .
He said he did not know if they were prostitutes because they never asked for money and he did not pay them. " Mr .
Bush , you have to admit it 's a pretty remarkable thing for a man just to go to a hotel room door and open it and have a woman standing there and have sex with her , " Brown said .
" It was very unusual , " Bush said .
To borrow Clinton 's line on the economy....it 's the last name , stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It always strikes me as funny when people try to claim GW was uneducated or a moron yet he graduated from Yale and Harvard.
Yes, you are funny.
George Bush got through school the same way he was handed top executive positions in business ventures despite running them into the ground.
It's the same reason his brother Neil was paid handsomely [cnn.com] by a semiconductor company despite knowing jack about the industry:"You have absolutely no educational background in semiconductors do you?
" asked Brown.
"That's correct," Bush, 48, responded in the March 4 deposition, a transcript of which was read by Reuters after the Houston Chronicle first reported on the documents.
"And you have absolutely over the last 10, 15, 20 years not a lot of demonstrable business experience that would bring about a company investing $2 million in you?
""I personally would object to the assumption that they're investing $2 million in me," said Bush, who went on to explain that he knew a lot about business and had been working in Asia for years.
...and had hot women knock on his door at night, who just happened to want to have sex with him:The women, he said, simply knocked on the door of his hotel room, entered and had sex with him.
He said he did not know if they were prostitutes because they never asked for money and he did not pay them."Mr.
Bush, you have to admit it's a pretty remarkable thing for a man just to go to a hotel room door and open it and have a woman standing there and have sex with her," Brown said.
"It was very unusual," Bush said.
To borrow Clinton's line on the economy....it's the last name, stupid.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119442</id>
	<title>Re:People weren't aware of this?</title>
	<author>SheeEttin</author>
	<datestamp>1265970300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I've been lackadaisical when it comes to following stories  about Texas  schoolboard  attempts to slip creationism into biology textbooks...</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been lackadaisical when it comes to following stories about Texas schoolboard attempts to slip creationism into biology textbooks.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been lackadaisical when it comes to following stories  about Texas  schoolboard  attempts to slip creationism into biology textbooks...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121548</id>
	<title>Re:Does curriculum matter anymore in the Google Ag</title>
	<author>chilvence</author>
	<datestamp>1265977440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That may sound good, but it is still being taught how think - its actually quite ironic isn't it, you can't teach people how to be free thinkers because the act of teaching it as absolute would negate the 'freeness'  of it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>What really teaches you how to think freely is watching stupid people hit themselves over the head with their own beliefs, for that you only need to step back and observe. Unfortunately, there isn't  a popular method to tell if you are doing the same thing without realising it, possibly because people hate being wrong so much they get rather upset and emotional and lose focus on reality when it is pointed out to them... therefore not sharing their personal insight as to what led them to make a fool of themself!</p><p>Funny old game<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That may sound good , but it is still being taught how think - its actually quite ironic is n't it , you ca n't teach people how to be free thinkers because the act of teaching it as absolute would negate the 'freeness ' of it : ) What really teaches you how to think freely is watching stupid people hit themselves over the head with their own beliefs , for that you only need to step back and observe .
Unfortunately , there is n't a popular method to tell if you are doing the same thing without realising it , possibly because people hate being wrong so much they get rather upset and emotional and lose focus on reality when it is pointed out to them... therefore not sharing their personal insight as to what led them to make a fool of themself ! Funny old game : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That may sound good, but it is still being taught how think - its actually quite ironic isn't it, you can't teach people how to be free thinkers because the act of teaching it as absolute would negate the 'freeness'  of it :)What really teaches you how to think freely is watching stupid people hit themselves over the head with their own beliefs, for that you only need to step back and observe.
Unfortunately, there isn't  a popular method to tell if you are doing the same thing without realising it, possibly because people hate being wrong so much they get rather upset and emotional and lose focus on reality when it is pointed out to them... therefore not sharing their personal insight as to what led them to make a fool of themself!Funny old game :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31150022</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>ichthyoboy</author>
	<datestamp>1266235380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>By your logic, forcing God out of public school is same as establishing the religion of atheism.</p></div><p>Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By your logic , forcing God out of public school is same as establishing the religion of atheism.Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By your logic, forcing God out of public school is same as establishing the religion of atheism.Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118006</id>
	<title>I never DEPENDED on schools for my eduction</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1265966700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read far more books on my own and a much wider variety than my teachers suggested.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read far more books on my own and a much wider variety than my teachers suggested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read far more books on my own and a much wider variety than my teachers suggested.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119532</id>
	<title>Weird</title>
	<author>theendlessnow</author>
	<datestamp>1265970480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leave the Texans alone... does NOBODY actually look at history anymore??</p><p>Oh, I forgot, we're supposed to rewrite it...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>I think Texas has the right idea.  Let's not forget who we are or where we came from (i.e. history).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leave the Texans alone... does NOBODY actually look at history anymore ?
? Oh , I forgot , we 're supposed to rewrite it... : - ) I think Texas has the right idea .
Let 's not forget who we are or where we came from ( i.e .
history ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leave the Texans alone... does NOBODY actually look at history anymore?
?Oh, I forgot, we're supposed to rewrite it... :-)I think Texas has the right idea.
Let's not forget who we are or where we came from (i.e.
history).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31130436</id>
	<title>Re:Second millennium Muslim civ, quit following</title>
	<author>bobzaguy</author>
	<datestamp>1266060060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Sadly, the reason is that textbook publishers only want to print one American History book for the 7th grade (or 1st grade or 8th grade) in America. Not 50 versions of history &ndash; one for each state.
Texas is the only state that sees fit to have its state school board do this kind of revision work on an ongoing year-by-year basis. So the publishers default to the Texas work for the rest of the nation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , the reason is that textbook publishers only want to print one American History book for the 7th grade ( or 1st grade or 8th grade ) in America .
Not 50 versions of history    one for each state .
Texas is the only state that sees fit to have its state school board do this kind of revision work on an ongoing year-by-year basis .
So the publishers default to the Texas work for the rest of the nation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Sadly, the reason is that textbook publishers only want to print one American History book for the 7th grade (or 1st grade or 8th grade) in America.
Not 50 versions of history – one for each state.
Texas is the only state that sees fit to have its state school board do this kind of revision work on an ongoing year-by-year basis.
So the publishers default to the Texas work for the rest of the nation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31126880</id>
	<title>Re:Afraid of Creationism?</title>
	<author>left00coaster</author>
	<datestamp>1266075840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People are afraid of YOUR GOD! More specifically, the tendency of religious fanatics to declare their god "One and True," and defame all the others.<br> <br>By your proposal, schools would have to give all competing theories equal weight, no matter how foolish or unsubstantiated they might be. Problem is, for hundreds of years, evolution (the theory itself, as well as the slow advance of human thought) has been slowly beating back the darkness of faith-based ignorance. What person in their right mind would want to relinquish our small, but hard-won, progress?</htmltext>
<tokenext>People are afraid of YOUR GOD !
More specifically , the tendency of religious fanatics to declare their god " One and True , " and defame all the others .
By your proposal , schools would have to give all competing theories equal weight , no matter how foolish or unsubstantiated they might be .
Problem is , for hundreds of years , evolution ( the theory itself , as well as the slow advance of human thought ) has been slowly beating back the darkness of faith-based ignorance .
What person in their right mind would want to relinquish our small , but hard-won , progress ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are afraid of YOUR GOD!
More specifically, the tendency of religious fanatics to declare their god "One and True," and defame all the others.
By your proposal, schools would have to give all competing theories equal weight, no matter how foolish or unsubstantiated they might be.
Problem is, for hundreds of years, evolution (the theory itself, as well as the slow advance of human thought) has been slowly beating back the darkness of faith-based ignorance.
What person in their right mind would want to relinquish our small, but hard-won, progress?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118154</id>
	<title>Down with monopoly schools!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265967000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This whole thread beautifully illustrates the problem of state monopoly schools.  The only reason it's a problem that that the Texas school board wants to make sure its beliefs are respected, is because we keep insisting on higher and higher levels of state supervision of curriculum. If every school could use whatever curriculum it thought appropriate, and every parent could send their kids to the schools they thought appropriate, there would be no problem. As it is, we're politicizing every aspect of education. This is not a logical or economic necessity -- it only arises because of the monopoly model for state schools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole thread beautifully illustrates the problem of state monopoly schools .
The only reason it 's a problem that that the Texas school board wants to make sure its beliefs are respected , is because we keep insisting on higher and higher levels of state supervision of curriculum .
If every school could use whatever curriculum it thought appropriate , and every parent could send their kids to the schools they thought appropriate , there would be no problem .
As it is , we 're politicizing every aspect of education .
This is not a logical or economic necessity -- it only arises because of the monopoly model for state schools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole thread beautifully illustrates the problem of state monopoly schools.
The only reason it's a problem that that the Texas school board wants to make sure its beliefs are respected, is because we keep insisting on higher and higher levels of state supervision of curriculum.
If every school could use whatever curriculum it thought appropriate, and every parent could send their kids to the schools they thought appropriate, there would be no problem.
As it is, we're politicizing every aspect of education.
This is not a logical or economic necessity -- it only arises because of the monopoly model for state schools.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119096</id>
	<title>Re:"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265969280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What defines a Constitution is that it is the main law of a country, so no law can contradict it. No more, no less.</p><p>A Constitution that is too easy to change may bring unestability. A Constitution that is too hard to change causes it to become outdated and, with time, a refounding of it.</p><p>In any case, constitution as the other laws are the expression of the will of the Government (hopefully a democratically elected one) and so, subject to change when that will changes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What defines a Constitution is that it is the main law of a country , so no law can contradict it .
No more , no less.A Constitution that is too easy to change may bring unestability .
A Constitution that is too hard to change causes it to become outdated and , with time , a refounding of it.In any case , constitution as the other laws are the expression of the will of the Government ( hopefully a democratically elected one ) and so , subject to change when that will changes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What defines a Constitution is that it is the main law of a country, so no law can contradict it.
No more, no less.A Constitution that is too easy to change may bring unestability.
A Constitution that is too hard to change causes it to become outdated and, with time, a refounding of it.In any case, constitution as the other laws are the expression of the will of the Government (hopefully a democratically elected one) and so, subject to change when that will changes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118348</id>
	<title>Nothing would turn me religious faster</title>
	<author>spidercoz</author>
	<datestamp>1265967480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>than the ground opening up and swallowing Texas whole.  Hallelujah, praise the lord.  Take Oklahoma and Kansas while you're at it.<br> <br>buncha fuckin cretins</htmltext>
<tokenext>than the ground opening up and swallowing Texas whole .
Hallelujah , praise the lord .
Take Oklahoma and Kansas while you 're at it .
buncha fuckin cretins</tokentext>
<sentencetext>than the ground opening up and swallowing Texas whole.
Hallelujah, praise the lord.
Take Oklahoma and Kansas while you're at it.
buncha fuckin cretins</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117358</id>
	<title>Re:"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266007980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's living in the interpretation of the Constitution.   Any sufficiently vague legal document is going to be open to interpretation which is going to change as society goes on.   I guarantee your mortgage is not as open to interpretation as the constitution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's living in the interpretation of the Constitution .
Any sufficiently vague legal document is going to be open to interpretation which is going to change as society goes on .
I guarantee your mortgage is not as open to interpretation as the constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's living in the interpretation of the Constitution.
Any sufficiently vague legal document is going to be open to interpretation which is going to change as society goes on.
I guarantee your mortgage is not as open to interpretation as the constitution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119712</id>
	<title>Re:"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265970900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The part that comes before and after that phrase.  Ie, "shall not be infringed" by who?  The federal government only, or does it include state and local governments?  If the part before is about right to bear "arms" the interpretation is then about what "arms" means; nukes, or assault rifles, or militia weapons, or handguns, or...<br><br>Everyone interprets the constitution, even those who say they don't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The part that comes before and after that phrase .
Ie , " shall not be infringed " by who ?
The federal government only , or does it include state and local governments ?
If the part before is about right to bear " arms " the interpretation is then about what " arms " means ; nukes , or assault rifles , or militia weapons , or handguns , or...Everyone interprets the constitution , even those who say they do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The part that comes before and after that phrase.
Ie, "shall not be infringed" by who?
The federal government only, or does it include state and local governments?
If the part before is about right to bear "arms" the interpretation is then about what "arms" means; nukes, or assault rifles, or militia weapons, or handguns, or...Everyone interprets the constitution, even those who say they don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117346</id>
	<title>Re:"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>Rene S. Hollan</author>
	<datestamp>1266007920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The constitution is not the only legal document subject to modification. In fact <b>many</b> legal judgments and court orders are subject to modification.</p><p>The key is that the terms of how and to what degree things can be modified are either part of the document itself, or established by statute.</p><p>As with all things, there's often room for subjective interpretation of the terms of modification, and that's where case law and precedent come in.</p><p>What distinguishes a constitution is that it is intentionally difficult to modify.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The constitution is not the only legal document subject to modification .
In fact many legal judgments and court orders are subject to modification.The key is that the terms of how and to what degree things can be modified are either part of the document itself , or established by statute.As with all things , there 's often room for subjective interpretation of the terms of modification , and that 's where case law and precedent come in.What distinguishes a constitution is that it is intentionally difficult to modify .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The constitution is not the only legal document subject to modification.
In fact many legal judgments and court orders are subject to modification.The key is that the terms of how and to what degree things can be modified are either part of the document itself, or established by statute.As with all things, there's often room for subjective interpretation of the terms of modification, and that's where case law and precedent come in.What distinguishes a constitution is that it is intentionally difficult to modify.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117958</id>
	<title>Multiple Choice</title>
	<author>davitur</author>
	<datestamp>1265966520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I've been lackadaisical when it comes to following stories about (some organization) attempts to slip [A] into [B], dismissing the stories as just 'dumbass (organization),...'</p><p>Where [A] and [B] are:<br>1. creationism, biology textbooks<br>2. global warming, school textbooks<br>3. abstinence, health textbooks<br>4. their noses, women's reproductive health<br>5. condoms, health class<br>6. the president, a Nobel Peace Prize</p><p>I find it immensely entertaining when people proclaim they are progressive/conservative/educated with an "open mind" until you hit that One Topic(tm) that becomes non-debatable and all those who dare debate the pro/cons are not only wrong, but complete lunatics for even arguing the opposing view.  Remember, before Copernicus the overwhelming "scientific consensus" was that the universe orbited the earth.  Consensus doesn't make something correct.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 've been lackadaisical when it comes to following stories about ( some organization ) attempts to slip [ A ] into [ B ] , dismissing the stories as just 'dumbass ( organization ) ,...'Where [ A ] and [ B ] are : 1. creationism , biology textbooks2 .
global warming , school textbooks3 .
abstinence , health textbooks4 .
their noses , women 's reproductive health5 .
condoms , health class6 .
the president , a Nobel Peace PrizeI find it immensely entertaining when people proclaim they are progressive/conservative/educated with an " open mind " until you hit that One Topic ( tm ) that becomes non-debatable and all those who dare debate the pro/cons are not only wrong , but complete lunatics for even arguing the opposing view .
Remember , before Copernicus the overwhelming " scientific consensus " was that the universe orbited the earth .
Consensus does n't make something correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I've been lackadaisical when it comes to following stories about (some organization) attempts to slip [A] into [B], dismissing the stories as just 'dumbass (organization),...'Where [A] and [B] are:1. creationism, biology textbooks2.
global warming, school textbooks3.
abstinence, health textbooks4.
their noses, women's reproductive health5.
condoms, health class6.
the president, a Nobel Peace PrizeI find it immensely entertaining when people proclaim they are progressive/conservative/educated with an "open mind" until you hit that One Topic(tm) that becomes non-debatable and all those who dare debate the pro/cons are not only wrong, but complete lunatics for even arguing the opposing view.
Remember, before Copernicus the overwhelming "scientific consensus" was that the universe orbited the earth.
Consensus doesn't make something correct.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120908</id>
	<title>Re:"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265974680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An amendment requires approval of the states.  A Supreme Court justice isn't simply allowed to pull one out of his or her ass and bypass the will of the people simply to impose their own personal agenda, which is the part of the "living document" fallacy that people object to.</p><p>And to the poster who commented that many mortgages are being modified now - this is to the great disdain of all responsible homeowners.  What kind of fucking idiot would think that they could afford a $300k mortgage on a $30k annual salary?  What part of ADJUSTABLE rate mortgage did you find so confusing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An amendment requires approval of the states .
A Supreme Court justice is n't simply allowed to pull one out of his or her ass and bypass the will of the people simply to impose their own personal agenda , which is the part of the " living document " fallacy that people object to.And to the poster who commented that many mortgages are being modified now - this is to the great disdain of all responsible homeowners .
What kind of fucking idiot would think that they could afford a $ 300k mortgage on a $ 30k annual salary ?
What part of ADJUSTABLE rate mortgage did you find so confusing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An amendment requires approval of the states.
A Supreme Court justice isn't simply allowed to pull one out of his or her ass and bypass the will of the people simply to impose their own personal agenda, which is the part of the "living document" fallacy that people object to.And to the poster who commented that many mortgages are being modified now - this is to the great disdain of all responsible homeowners.
What kind of fucking idiot would think that they could afford a $300k mortgage on a $30k annual salary?
What part of ADJUSTABLE rate mortgage did you find so confusing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118164</id>
	<title>Re:People weren't aware of this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265967000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;This evangelical lobby has successfully had references to the American Constitution as a 'living document,'</p><p>The Constitution is not "alive" in the sense most people use it, where the words have no meaning and the Congress ignores what it says, such that the Constitution might as well not even exist.  That's why they (and I) find the reference objectionable.   In reality the Constitution is a piece-of-paper with some Laws scribbled upon it, and it remains fixed for a long long time (two decades so far), until an amendment is added to it.  Then it changes.</p></div><p>I am rather disturbed to have to admit that I owe a debt of gratitude to this evangelical lobbyist group.  I was raised to believe that the constitution is not a "living document", but THE root of our laws.</p><p>I grew up to believe that the constitutions (US and states) are not flexible, and are not open to re-interpretation.  They are the rules on which all our other rules are based.  You can rhetoric around it if you are an amoral slime-ball trying to redefine words to serve your own ends, but they are relatively simple, straightforward statements along the lines of "Thou shalt..." and "Thou shalt not...", not vague, not difficult to understand, and not flexible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; This evangelical lobby has successfully had references to the American Constitution as a 'living document,'The Constitution is not " alive " in the sense most people use it , where the words have no meaning and the Congress ignores what it says , such that the Constitution might as well not even exist .
That 's why they ( and I ) find the reference objectionable .
In reality the Constitution is a piece-of-paper with some Laws scribbled upon it , and it remains fixed for a long long time ( two decades so far ) , until an amendment is added to it .
Then it changes.I am rather disturbed to have to admit that I owe a debt of gratitude to this evangelical lobbyist group .
I was raised to believe that the constitution is not a " living document " , but THE root of our laws.I grew up to believe that the constitutions ( US and states ) are not flexible , and are not open to re-interpretation .
They are the rules on which all our other rules are based .
You can rhetoric around it if you are an amoral slime-ball trying to redefine words to serve your own ends , but they are relatively simple , straightforward statements along the lines of " Thou shalt... " and " Thou shalt not... " , not vague , not difficult to understand , and not flexible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;This evangelical lobby has successfully had references to the American Constitution as a 'living document,'The Constitution is not "alive" in the sense most people use it, where the words have no meaning and the Congress ignores what it says, such that the Constitution might as well not even exist.
That's why they (and I) find the reference objectionable.
In reality the Constitution is a piece-of-paper with some Laws scribbled upon it, and it remains fixed for a long long time (two decades so far), until an amendment is added to it.
Then it changes.I am rather disturbed to have to admit that I owe a debt of gratitude to this evangelical lobbyist group.
I was raised to believe that the constitution is not a "living document", but THE root of our laws.I grew up to believe that the constitutions (US and states) are not flexible, and are not open to re-interpretation.
They are the rules on which all our other rules are based.
You can rhetoric around it if you are an amoral slime-ball trying to redefine words to serve your own ends, but they are relatively simple, straightforward statements along the lines of "Thou shalt..." and "Thou shalt not...", not vague, not difficult to understand, and not flexible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117590</id>
	<title>Profiting from Education</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265965440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I didn't realize is that Texas schoolbooks set the standard for the rest of the country. And it's not just Creationism that this Christian coalition is attempting to bring into schoolbooks, but a full frontal assault on history, politics, and the humanities that exploits the fact that final decisions are being made by a school board completely academically unqualified to make informed evaluations of the changes these lobbyists propose.</p></div><p>Dr. Richard Feynman wrote about his experiences that followed after he accepted the invitation participate in the committee responsible for selecting the math texts in his children's California school. It's not only Texas where the uneducated and the unqualified have the responsibility of determining how what materials will be used to lay the foundation for kids' futures. Feynman wrote that in the end it was the company with the most effective sales tactics, i.e. the one that most effectively bribed and coerced the committee members with freebies, that won the contract. Most of these concerned citizens didn't even take the time to read the texts, yet they submitted their vote, regardless of this fact.</p><p>It's the American way, just like Jersey Kozinsky wrote about in Being There. We are subject to the most effective leadership that people with power will allow which determines which way the dice are cocked.</p><p>Sorry to be such a cynic... wait, not I'm not. I truly believe we are doomed to repeat history because it's the victors that write, and they glorify victory. Ergo, it is no wonder that war-mongering, logic-challenged, self-serving Christians select textbooks. Just last night, I was recounting how, during my public school education, I was introduced to one of the fundamental concepts that, it was explained to me, defined free market capitalism, the freedom to fail.</p><p>And now, years later, here's the proof...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't realize is that Texas schoolbooks set the standard for the rest of the country .
And it 's not just Creationism that this Christian coalition is attempting to bring into schoolbooks , but a full frontal assault on history , politics , and the humanities that exploits the fact that final decisions are being made by a school board completely academically unqualified to make informed evaluations of the changes these lobbyists propose.Dr .
Richard Feynman wrote about his experiences that followed after he accepted the invitation participate in the committee responsible for selecting the math texts in his children 's California school .
It 's not only Texas where the uneducated and the unqualified have the responsibility of determining how what materials will be used to lay the foundation for kids ' futures .
Feynman wrote that in the end it was the company with the most effective sales tactics , i.e .
the one that most effectively bribed and coerced the committee members with freebies , that won the contract .
Most of these concerned citizens did n't even take the time to read the texts , yet they submitted their vote , regardless of this fact.It 's the American way , just like Jersey Kozinsky wrote about in Being There .
We are subject to the most effective leadership that people with power will allow which determines which way the dice are cocked.Sorry to be such a cynic... wait , not I 'm not .
I truly believe we are doomed to repeat history because it 's the victors that write , and they glorify victory .
Ergo , it is no wonder that war-mongering , logic-challenged , self-serving Christians select textbooks .
Just last night , I was recounting how , during my public school education , I was introduced to one of the fundamental concepts that , it was explained to me , defined free market capitalism , the freedom to fail.And now , years later , here 's the proof.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't realize is that Texas schoolbooks set the standard for the rest of the country.
And it's not just Creationism that this Christian coalition is attempting to bring into schoolbooks, but a full frontal assault on history, politics, and the humanities that exploits the fact that final decisions are being made by a school board completely academically unqualified to make informed evaluations of the changes these lobbyists propose.Dr.
Richard Feynman wrote about his experiences that followed after he accepted the invitation participate in the committee responsible for selecting the math texts in his children's California school.
It's not only Texas where the uneducated and the unqualified have the responsibility of determining how what materials will be used to lay the foundation for kids' futures.
Feynman wrote that in the end it was the company with the most effective sales tactics, i.e.
the one that most effectively bribed and coerced the committee members with freebies, that won the contract.
Most of these concerned citizens didn't even take the time to read the texts, yet they submitted their vote, regardless of this fact.It's the American way, just like Jersey Kozinsky wrote about in Being There.
We are subject to the most effective leadership that people with power will allow which determines which way the dice are cocked.Sorry to be such a cynic... wait, not I'm not.
I truly believe we are doomed to repeat history because it's the victors that write, and they glorify victory.
Ergo, it is no wonder that war-mongering, logic-challenged, self-serving Christians select textbooks.
Just last night, I was recounting how, during my public school education, I was introduced to one of the fundamental concepts that, it was explained to me, defined free market capitalism, the freedom to fail.And now, years later, here's the proof...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121800</id>
	<title>Re:How bad could it be?</title>
	<author>defaria</author>
	<datestamp>1265978520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe Texas should be dethroned and other states should stop following them! How did they get in that position in the first place?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe Texas should be dethroned and other states should stop following them !
How did they get in that position in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe Texas should be dethroned and other states should stop following them!
How did they get in that position in the first place?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120602</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265973720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jahsus Christ, who made them boss...oh, wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jahsus Christ , who made them boss...oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jahsus Christ, who made them boss...oh, wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118264</id>
	<title>And then they laugh...</title>
	<author>feepness</author>
	<datestamp>1265967300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... when other people want to homeschool their kids.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... when other people want to homeschool their kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... when other people want to homeschool their kids.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31149184</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone Gets Their Own Truth Now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266231540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You know, I have to chuckle every time I see one of these stories. When I was back in school, it was pretty standard classical stuff - the Greeks, Shakespeare, Newton, the Scientific Method, etc. Now, it happened to be that dead white guys came up with most of that stuff, but that was just how it was. But sometime after I left, the Deconstructionists, the Postmodernists, the Moral Relativists, and the Frankfurt School got their hands on the reigns. No ones 'truth' was any better than another. The scientific method was no more valid than animism. Everyone got their own truth.</p><p>Well, guess what, folks? Now the Christian Fundamentalists (and the Islamic Fundamentalists) are pressing for their own 'truth'. Remember, yin and yang - everything contains within itself the seed of its opposite. That's one piece of non-white guy wisdom that holds up pretty well.</p></div><p>Very well spoken. I find it hilarious that the original post complains of a change to the language "living document" that he claims was put in place in the 1950's. Being has the nation was founded nearly two centuries prior to that, you can't exactly draw the line at 1950 and say "that's the day everything was set in stone". Double points for those getting the irony of complaining that you can't change the immutable writ of the 1950's which claims that the constitution is not immutable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I have to chuckle every time I see one of these stories .
When I was back in school , it was pretty standard classical stuff - the Greeks , Shakespeare , Newton , the Scientific Method , etc .
Now , it happened to be that dead white guys came up with most of that stuff , but that was just how it was .
But sometime after I left , the Deconstructionists , the Postmodernists , the Moral Relativists , and the Frankfurt School got their hands on the reigns .
No ones 'truth ' was any better than another .
The scientific method was no more valid than animism .
Everyone got their own truth.Well , guess what , folks ?
Now the Christian Fundamentalists ( and the Islamic Fundamentalists ) are pressing for their own 'truth' .
Remember , yin and yang - everything contains within itself the seed of its opposite .
That 's one piece of non-white guy wisdom that holds up pretty well.Very well spoken .
I find it hilarious that the original post complains of a change to the language " living document " that he claims was put in place in the 1950 's .
Being has the nation was founded nearly two centuries prior to that , you ca n't exactly draw the line at 1950 and say " that 's the day everything was set in stone " .
Double points for those getting the irony of complaining that you ca n't change the immutable writ of the 1950 's which claims that the constitution is not immutable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I have to chuckle every time I see one of these stories.
When I was back in school, it was pretty standard classical stuff - the Greeks, Shakespeare, Newton, the Scientific Method, etc.
Now, it happened to be that dead white guys came up with most of that stuff, but that was just how it was.
But sometime after I left, the Deconstructionists, the Postmodernists, the Moral Relativists, and the Frankfurt School got their hands on the reigns.
No ones 'truth' was any better than another.
The scientific method was no more valid than animism.
Everyone got their own truth.Well, guess what, folks?
Now the Christian Fundamentalists (and the Islamic Fundamentalists) are pressing for their own 'truth'.
Remember, yin and yang - everything contains within itself the seed of its opposite.
That's one piece of non-white guy wisdom that holds up pretty well.Very well spoken.
I find it hilarious that the original post complains of a change to the language "living document" that he claims was put in place in the 1950's.
Being has the nation was founded nearly two centuries prior to that, you can't exactly draw the line at 1950 and say "that's the day everything was set in stone".
Double points for those getting the irony of complaining that you can't change the immutable writ of the 1950's which claims that the constitution is not immutable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119790</id>
	<title>Science is faith based as well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265971080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least Christians are willing to admit their beliefs are based on faith. When is the scientific community going to grow up and realize that they have yet to offer proof against creationism. Nobody is saying evolution does not take place, they are simply saying there are other theory's as well.</p><p>Seriously it's time for the scientific community to get off their high horse, and admit that their beliefs are as much faith based as everyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least Christians are willing to admit their beliefs are based on faith .
When is the scientific community going to grow up and realize that they have yet to offer proof against creationism .
Nobody is saying evolution does not take place , they are simply saying there are other theory 's as well.Seriously it 's time for the scientific community to get off their high horse , and admit that their beliefs are as much faith based as everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least Christians are willing to admit their beliefs are based on faith.
When is the scientific community going to grow up and realize that they have yet to offer proof against creationism.
Nobody is saying evolution does not take place, they are simply saying there are other theory's as well.Seriously it's time for the scientific community to get off their high horse, and admit that their beliefs are as much faith based as everyone else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117260</id>
	<title>"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>geoffrobinson</author>
	<datestamp>1266007620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I asked a lawyer who believed in this, pre-market crash, if they believed in a "living mortgage." Why is the Constitution the only legal document we do that to?</p><p>Anyone who wants to teach that is going for a particular point of view. Why is the opposite view nefarious but this one all sweetness and light?</p><p>This whole summary is ignorant. Everyone is pushing a point of view. It has to be somebody's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I asked a lawyer who believed in this , pre-market crash , if they believed in a " living mortgage .
" Why is the Constitution the only legal document we do that to ? Anyone who wants to teach that is going for a particular point of view .
Why is the opposite view nefarious but this one all sweetness and light ? This whole summary is ignorant .
Everyone is pushing a point of view .
It has to be somebody 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I asked a lawyer who believed in this, pre-market crash, if they believed in a "living mortgage.
" Why is the Constitution the only legal document we do that to?Anyone who wants to teach that is going for a particular point of view.
Why is the opposite view nefarious but this one all sweetness and light?This whole summary is ignorant.
Everyone is pushing a point of view.
It has to be somebody's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120288</id>
	<title>Re:"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265972700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about this interpretation?  To ensure a militia (military force) behaves by the rules of it's government the people forming that government have the right to possess and use weapons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about this interpretation ?
To ensure a militia ( military force ) behaves by the rules of it 's government the people forming that government have the right to possess and use weapons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about this interpretation?
To ensure a militia (military force) behaves by the rules of it's government the people forming that government have the right to possess and use weapons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122786</id>
	<title>Re:People weren't aware of this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265982960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't let that debt BS get past:</p><p>The debt was MASSIVE before Bush added &gt;8 trillion to it.  Clinton only got the YEARLY budget to surplus we were STILL in debt at the end of the Clinton years when so many people were foolishly demanding the surplus be turned into tax cuts instead of paying down the debt.  The "NATIONAL DEBT" includes all the previous debt + whatever Obama spends. Its not all his and it would be a miracle its so impossible for him to kill the debt. It is SO HUGE that we could stop almost all government spending and still not kill off the debt in 7 years.</p><p>The budget for 2009 was created in 2008. that is how it works. Did people miss Obama's state of the union comment about this is how budgeting is done?  was it too complex??  Much of 2009's spending was SET and approved by the pussy dems and filibuster crazed GOP and veto wielding bush. AS was the bailout of the banksters.  The Dems responded by taxing and limiting pay to get that money back and the GOP flipped out!  both were wrong but to side with the banksters and flip out because the public wants the money back? that just shows how out of touch they are or how stupid they think you are.  They regret giving the banks money but they won't do anything to fix their mess?</p><p>Bad economy = less tax income = budget deficit.</p><p>Something many don't realize is that Obama's budget includes the military spending which is UNUSUAL since politicians love to use LOOPHOLES exempt massive spending bills like the last two wars.  The idiot Media just reported what the government said was the budget and didn't add all the add-on expenditures.  So Obama's budget SEEMS much larger than it is.</p><p>As history has shown, governments SPEND their way out from depression. Yes, I said depression - wake up. It doesn't have to be a great depression to be a depression.  Remember, it took about 2 years before the USA officially said it was a recession!</p><p>Sadly, most Americans do not realize how much of a corporate socialist country they live in. The biggest player in the economy is the government. government spending cuts isn't like GM laying off workers its far far bigger in its economic impact and I'm not just talking about laying off government related workers which make up about 17\% of the workforce.  Many private businesses depend on government spending.  Even if you cut this stuff out, you can't do it quickly or your blow would be bigger than the current crash.</p><p>People complain government workers are overpaid. this is false. They were initially paid a little less than their private counterparts until the 50s cultural shift. The reason they are paid better now is because the private sector has been going DOWN while stock and CEO pay has been going up. ITS A FACT.  the private sector has fallen behind and gov hasn't been raising pay at the old rates of increase either. that is how pathetic the situation is.</p><p>The banksters own the country. good cop or bad cop - we're getting screwed.</p><p>How is the DEBT payed?  its been payed since we gave the FED (run by the banksters and its not government) power over us. We always pay for the debt-- your US MONEY devalues everyday by the inflation rate which is influenced by our debt. We don't even report inflation anymore it has gotten so bad. If we audit the FED (forget it) numbers likely will leak out and the BOND market that has kept us on the brink of total near instant collapse  will be at serious risk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't let that debt BS get past : The debt was MASSIVE before Bush added &gt; 8 trillion to it .
Clinton only got the YEARLY budget to surplus we were STILL in debt at the end of the Clinton years when so many people were foolishly demanding the surplus be turned into tax cuts instead of paying down the debt .
The " NATIONAL DEBT " includes all the previous debt + whatever Obama spends .
Its not all his and it would be a miracle its so impossible for him to kill the debt .
It is SO HUGE that we could stop almost all government spending and still not kill off the debt in 7 years.The budget for 2009 was created in 2008. that is how it works .
Did people miss Obama 's state of the union comment about this is how budgeting is done ?
was it too complex ? ?
Much of 2009 's spending was SET and approved by the pussy dems and filibuster crazed GOP and veto wielding bush .
AS was the bailout of the banksters .
The Dems responded by taxing and limiting pay to get that money back and the GOP flipped out !
both were wrong but to side with the banksters and flip out because the public wants the money back ?
that just shows how out of touch they are or how stupid they think you are .
They regret giving the banks money but they wo n't do anything to fix their mess ? Bad economy = less tax income = budget deficit.Something many do n't realize is that Obama 's budget includes the military spending which is UNUSUAL since politicians love to use LOOPHOLES exempt massive spending bills like the last two wars .
The idiot Media just reported what the government said was the budget and did n't add all the add-on expenditures .
So Obama 's budget SEEMS much larger than it is.As history has shown , governments SPEND their way out from depression .
Yes , I said depression - wake up .
It does n't have to be a great depression to be a depression .
Remember , it took about 2 years before the USA officially said it was a recession ! Sadly , most Americans do not realize how much of a corporate socialist country they live in .
The biggest player in the economy is the government .
government spending cuts is n't like GM laying off workers its far far bigger in its economic impact and I 'm not just talking about laying off government related workers which make up about 17 \ % of the workforce .
Many private businesses depend on government spending .
Even if you cut this stuff out , you ca n't do it quickly or your blow would be bigger than the current crash.People complain government workers are overpaid .
this is false .
They were initially paid a little less than their private counterparts until the 50s cultural shift .
The reason they are paid better now is because the private sector has been going DOWN while stock and CEO pay has been going up .
ITS A FACT .
the private sector has fallen behind and gov has n't been raising pay at the old rates of increase either .
that is how pathetic the situation is.The banksters own the country .
good cop or bad cop - we 're getting screwed.How is the DEBT payed ?
its been payed since we gave the FED ( run by the banksters and its not government ) power over us .
We always pay for the debt-- your US MONEY devalues everyday by the inflation rate which is influenced by our debt .
We do n't even report inflation anymore it has gotten so bad .
If we audit the FED ( forget it ) numbers likely will leak out and the BOND market that has kept us on the brink of total near instant collapse will be at serious risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't let that debt BS get past:The debt was MASSIVE before Bush added &gt;8 trillion to it.
Clinton only got the YEARLY budget to surplus we were STILL in debt at the end of the Clinton years when so many people were foolishly demanding the surplus be turned into tax cuts instead of paying down the debt.
The "NATIONAL DEBT" includes all the previous debt + whatever Obama spends.
Its not all his and it would be a miracle its so impossible for him to kill the debt.
It is SO HUGE that we could stop almost all government spending and still not kill off the debt in 7 years.The budget for 2009 was created in 2008. that is how it works.
Did people miss Obama's state of the union comment about this is how budgeting is done?
was it too complex??
Much of 2009's spending was SET and approved by the pussy dems and filibuster crazed GOP and veto wielding bush.
AS was the bailout of the banksters.
The Dems responded by taxing and limiting pay to get that money back and the GOP flipped out!
both were wrong but to side with the banksters and flip out because the public wants the money back?
that just shows how out of touch they are or how stupid they think you are.
They regret giving the banks money but they won't do anything to fix their mess?Bad economy = less tax income = budget deficit.Something many don't realize is that Obama's budget includes the military spending which is UNUSUAL since politicians love to use LOOPHOLES exempt massive spending bills like the last two wars.
The idiot Media just reported what the government said was the budget and didn't add all the add-on expenditures.
So Obama's budget SEEMS much larger than it is.As history has shown, governments SPEND their way out from depression.
Yes, I said depression - wake up.
It doesn't have to be a great depression to be a depression.
Remember, it took about 2 years before the USA officially said it was a recession!Sadly, most Americans do not realize how much of a corporate socialist country they live in.
The biggest player in the economy is the government.
government spending cuts isn't like GM laying off workers its far far bigger in its economic impact and I'm not just talking about laying off government related workers which make up about 17\% of the workforce.
Many private businesses depend on government spending.
Even if you cut this stuff out, you can't do it quickly or your blow would be bigger than the current crash.People complain government workers are overpaid.
this is false.
They were initially paid a little less than their private counterparts until the 50s cultural shift.
The reason they are paid better now is because the private sector has been going DOWN while stock and CEO pay has been going up.
ITS A FACT.
the private sector has fallen behind and gov hasn't been raising pay at the old rates of increase either.
that is how pathetic the situation is.The banksters own the country.
good cop or bad cop - we're getting screwed.How is the DEBT payed?
its been payed since we gave the FED (run by the banksters and its not government) power over us.
We always pay for the debt-- your US MONEY devalues everyday by the inflation rate which is influenced by our debt.
We don't even report inflation anymore it has gotten so bad.
If we audit the FED (forget it) numbers likely will leak out and the BOND market that has kept us on the brink of total near instant collapse  will be at serious risk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117462</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122226</id>
	<title>Well now, this topic got everybody's ridge up...</title>
	<author>Finsterwald P Ogleth</author>
	<datestamp>1265980380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The parent lobs a grenade for one side of the issue; but doesn't pick up the rest of the story.  704 responses so far...a few actually make good points.</p><p>From what I understand, the "publishers" run these textbooks by these state Public Education committees to get feedback and "diurection" as to what should be included in the texts our kids will be reading and studying.  At this point, I think it's Texas and California to whom these publishers sell the majority of their wares...and most states have abdicated to those two princiuples.  To make matters worse (if it is California), budget problems are impacting sales there...leaving Texas as the long pole in the tent.</p><p>This is NOT a one-sided issue...and it's been creeping along like this for years...As one of the responses brought out, the CotUS is NOT a living document, rather it is stakes driven into our soil as guidance...its' clear intent was to define what role our Federal Government was to play.  But, what has happened over the last 50 years or so, is our own diversity and political correctness have shot holes in our feet.  The texts editors have been slowly "removing" what I thought (way back when) were important events and references - - Like Christopher Columbus - "it is not relevant now"...</p><p>We also have to remember that these publishers utilize writers and scholars, as well as Consultants (o-o-o-o-h, bad word) to determine what should be included in the texts...to the extent that references to major events get re-defined, based on their views of "what's important".  Like Christmas Day as a Holiday (Holy Day is the root words of that one), being replaced by a "nonsense" day...to avoid making a religious reference.  And some other instances of dropping words from the text of the Declaration of Independence...as in "We hold these truths to be self-evident...that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...".  And creator is NOT specific.  Thomas Jefferson wrote that, a man who treasured religion, but didn't want a document favoring one over another for this new country that favored one religion over another.  And the Constitutional Convention started from the Declaration of Independence when they began work on the CotUS.</p><p>And also recall that the very founding settlers of this country left everything behind them in England, to escape religious persecution...</p><p>So there is also all-out war within the Texas faction; and it is many-faceted...from an insistence of RE-ESTABLISHING our fundamental "stakes" in the ground, to over-embellishing the significance of Religion in our growth and evolution as a country, to encompassing our diversity and melting pot as a nation of INDIVIDUALS from many different cultures, societies and beliefs.  Individuals being the key word...Everything in the BoR is about us as a society of INDIVIDUALS, not groups.  And we are one of the few, if not the only, nation, who value the individual over the society.</p><p>As George Washington said,"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."</p><p>I would trust in those words, unbleached by Political Correctness, as opposed to any I have heard recently...</p><p>FPO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The parent lobs a grenade for one side of the issue ; but does n't pick up the rest of the story .
704 responses so far...a few actually make good points.From what I understand , the " publishers " run these textbooks by these state Public Education committees to get feedback and " diurection " as to what should be included in the texts our kids will be reading and studying .
At this point , I think it 's Texas and California to whom these publishers sell the majority of their wares...and most states have abdicated to those two princiuples .
To make matters worse ( if it is California ) , budget problems are impacting sales there...leaving Texas as the long pole in the tent.This is NOT a one-sided issue...and it 's been creeping along like this for years...As one of the responses brought out , the CotUS is NOT a living document , rather it is stakes driven into our soil as guidance...its ' clear intent was to define what role our Federal Government was to play .
But , what has happened over the last 50 years or so , is our own diversity and political correctness have shot holes in our feet .
The texts editors have been slowly " removing " what I thought ( way back when ) were important events and references - - Like Christopher Columbus - " it is not relevant now " ...We also have to remember that these publishers utilize writers and scholars , as well as Consultants ( o-o-o-o-h , bad word ) to determine what should be included in the texts...to the extent that references to major events get re-defined , based on their views of " what 's important " .
Like Christmas Day as a Holiday ( Holy Day is the root words of that one ) , being replaced by a " nonsense " day...to avoid making a religious reference .
And some other instances of dropping words from the text of the Declaration of Independence...as in " We hold these truths to be self-evident...that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights... " .
And creator is NOT specific .
Thomas Jefferson wrote that , a man who treasured religion , but did n't want a document favoring one over another for this new country that favored one religion over another .
And the Constitutional Convention started from the Declaration of Independence when they began work on the CotUS.And also recall that the very founding settlers of this country left everything behind them in England , to escape religious persecution...So there is also all-out war within the Texas faction ; and it is many-faceted...from an insistence of RE-ESTABLISHING our fundamental " stakes " in the ground , to over-embellishing the significance of Religion in our growth and evolution as a country , to encompassing our diversity and melting pot as a nation of INDIVIDUALS from many different cultures , societies and beliefs .
Individuals being the key word...Everything in the BoR is about us as a society of INDIVIDUALS , not groups .
And we are one of the few , if not the only , nation , who value the individual over the society.As George Washington said , " Government is not reason , it is not eloquence , it is force ; like fire , a troublesome servant and a fearful master .
Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action .
" I would trust in those words , unbleached by Political Correctness , as opposed to any I have heard recently...FPO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The parent lobs a grenade for one side of the issue; but doesn't pick up the rest of the story.
704 responses so far...a few actually make good points.From what I understand, the "publishers" run these textbooks by these state Public Education committees to get feedback and "diurection" as to what should be included in the texts our kids will be reading and studying.
At this point, I think it's Texas and California to whom these publishers sell the majority of their wares...and most states have abdicated to those two princiuples.
To make matters worse (if it is California), budget problems are impacting sales there...leaving Texas as the long pole in the tent.This is NOT a one-sided issue...and it's been creeping along like this for years...As one of the responses brought out, the CotUS is NOT a living document, rather it is stakes driven into our soil as guidance...its' clear intent was to define what role our Federal Government was to play.
But, what has happened over the last 50 years or so, is our own diversity and political correctness have shot holes in our feet.
The texts editors have been slowly "removing" what I thought (way back when) were important events and references - - Like Christopher Columbus - "it is not relevant now"...We also have to remember that these publishers utilize writers and scholars, as well as Consultants (o-o-o-o-h, bad word) to determine what should be included in the texts...to the extent that references to major events get re-defined, based on their views of "what's important".
Like Christmas Day as a Holiday (Holy Day is the root words of that one), being replaced by a "nonsense" day...to avoid making a religious reference.
And some other instances of dropping words from the text of the Declaration of Independence...as in "We hold these truths to be self-evident...that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...".
And creator is NOT specific.
Thomas Jefferson wrote that, a man who treasured religion, but didn't want a document favoring one over another for this new country that favored one religion over another.
And the Constitutional Convention started from the Declaration of Independence when they began work on the CotUS.And also recall that the very founding settlers of this country left everything behind them in England, to escape religious persecution...So there is also all-out war within the Texas faction; and it is many-faceted...from an insistence of RE-ESTABLISHING our fundamental "stakes" in the ground, to over-embellishing the significance of Religion in our growth and evolution as a country, to encompassing our diversity and melting pot as a nation of INDIVIDUALS from many different cultures, societies and beliefs.
Individuals being the key word...Everything in the BoR is about us as a society of INDIVIDUALS, not groups.
And we are one of the few, if not the only, nation, who value the individual over the society.As George Washington said,"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.
Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.
"I would trust in those words, unbleached by Political Correctness, as opposed to any I have heard recently...FPO</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118502</id>
	<title>Re:People weren't aware of this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265967840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's rather that religious people get very excited over a bunch of issues so out of this world that nobody else sees where the problem could possibly be, which makes it seem like there's ONLY rabid idiots, while in fact they are a very small minority. Rabid idiots win over laid-back gentlemen everytime, see nazism and russian revolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's rather that religious people get very excited over a bunch of issues so out of this world that nobody else sees where the problem could possibly be , which makes it seem like there 's ONLY rabid idiots , while in fact they are a very small minority .
Rabid idiots win over laid-back gentlemen everytime , see nazism and russian revolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's rather that religious people get very excited over a bunch of issues so out of this world that nobody else sees where the problem could possibly be, which makes it seem like there's ONLY rabid idiots, while in fact they are a very small minority.
Rabid idiots win over laid-back gentlemen everytime, see nazism and russian revolution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117872</id>
	<title>Wow, what a summary</title>
	<author>Jeian</author>
	<datestamp>1265966280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've seen some notably bad summaries on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. but I'm pretty sure this one beats them all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen some notably bad summaries on / .
but I 'm pretty sure this one beats them all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen some notably bad summaries on /.
but I'm pretty sure this one beats them all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118420</id>
	<title>Re:Afraid of Creationism?</title>
	<author>Beelzebud</author>
	<datestamp>1265967600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Show me some evidence of creation.   Until you can do that it has no business being taught in science class.   The evidence for evolution is vast.

Creationism is not a science in any way.   For one thing, every religion has their own creation myth.  Which one do we teach?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Show me some evidence of creation .
Until you can do that it has no business being taught in science class .
The evidence for evolution is vast .
Creationism is not a science in any way .
For one thing , every religion has their own creation myth .
Which one do we teach ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Show me some evidence of creation.
Until you can do that it has no business being taught in science class.
The evidence for evolution is vast.
Creationism is not a science in any way.
For one thing, every religion has their own creation myth.
Which one do we teach?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121988</id>
	<title>Re:Well, 'fair dos' to them</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1265979360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It's up to the rest of society to fight their corner equally well, in the interests of balance; unfortunately only the fanatics seem to have the energy to do this..."</p><p>The "rest of society" lack the balls to attack religion, as they should be doing if they favored reason over superstition.</p><p>Unfortunately, they risk the wrath of (j)ihadists by doing so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's up to the rest of society to fight their corner equally well , in the interests of balance ; unfortunately only the fanatics seem to have the energy to do this... " The " rest of society " lack the balls to attack religion , as they should be doing if they favored reason over superstition.Unfortunately , they risk the wrath of ( j ) ihadists by doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's up to the rest of society to fight their corner equally well, in the interests of balance; unfortunately only the fanatics seem to have the energy to do this..."The "rest of society" lack the balls to attack religion, as they should be doing if they favored reason over superstition.Unfortunately, they risk the wrath of (j)ihadists by doing so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121848</id>
	<title>Re:People weren't aware of this?</title>
	<author>jvillain</author>
	<datestamp>1265978760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The dumbing down of Americans has been going on for a long time now. Seems pointless to try and stop it. If Americans don't care I don't see why any one else should either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The dumbing down of Americans has been going on for a long time now .
Seems pointless to try and stop it .
If Americans do n't care I do n't see why any one else should either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The dumbing down of Americans has been going on for a long time now.
Seems pointless to try and stop it.
If Americans don't care I don't see why any one else should either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118618</id>
	<title>lay off</title>
	<author>rhaacke</author>
	<datestamp>1265968200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, I'm from Texas and resent the "dumb ass Texan" comment. There are many highly intelligent people in this state. Many of them spend a great deal of effort fighting down these creationist folks every couple of years. We have succeeded quite well up to this point. What we need is support, not bigoted comments directed at all Texans from people who are making one of the first mistakes of the intellectually weak, generalization.

Second, I think that if parents were free to pick the school that their children attended instead of the one picked for them by the government, creationism vs. evolution in the classroom would no longer be an issue. Children could then attend the schools whose curricula most closely aligned with their own beliefs and desires.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , I 'm from Texas and resent the " dumb ass Texan " comment .
There are many highly intelligent people in this state .
Many of them spend a great deal of effort fighting down these creationist folks every couple of years .
We have succeeded quite well up to this point .
What we need is support , not bigoted comments directed at all Texans from people who are making one of the first mistakes of the intellectually weak , generalization .
Second , I think that if parents were free to pick the school that their children attended instead of the one picked for them by the government , creationism vs. evolution in the classroom would no longer be an issue .
Children could then attend the schools whose curricula most closely aligned with their own beliefs and desires .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, I'm from Texas and resent the "dumb ass Texan" comment.
There are many highly intelligent people in this state.
Many of them spend a great deal of effort fighting down these creationist folks every couple of years.
We have succeeded quite well up to this point.
What we need is support, not bigoted comments directed at all Texans from people who are making one of the first mistakes of the intellectually weak, generalization.
Second, I think that if parents were free to pick the school that their children attended instead of the one picked for them by the government, creationism vs. evolution in the classroom would no longer be an issue.
Children could then attend the schools whose curricula most closely aligned with their own beliefs and desires.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121292</id>
	<title>Right-wing constituional myths</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1265976060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
One of the weirder bits of right-wing belief is that <a href="http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/28909/Constitution-divinely-inspired.html" title="ldschurchnews.com">U.S. Constitution was "divinely inspired"</a> [ldschurchnews.com].  This is an official Mormon position, and some of the more right-wing Christian groups have picked up on it.
</p><p>
What's so weird about this is that we have the Federalist Paper and the debates of the Constitutional Convention.  There's not much mystery about how it was put together.  The major players all wrote about their thinking.
</p><p>
The basic parameters of the U.S. Constitution came from the constraints the authors faced.  They already had the Articles of Confederation of the Continental Congress in force, which set up a confederation of states, somewhat like the United Nations or the European Union.  This was a weak federation, and it ran into the problems of most weak federations - too many decisions required unanimity. so it was hard to get things done. So they needed something with more central authority.
Britain was still a threat.  "We must hang together, or we will assuredly all hang separately".  The key point to remember about the Constitutional Convention was that the delegates knew that if their new government broke down, they'd end up being hung for treason by British soldiers.  (This was not a theoretical risk.  See War of 1812.)
</p><p>
But the states didn't want too much central authority.   Almost everyone agreed that a king was a bad idea.  (Well, Hamilton wanted a king.  He wanted to be king.  Didn't fly.)  Direct democracy was considered, but the French Revolution was getting underway at the time (the storming of the Bastille occurred during the convention), and that wasn't looking too good.   Especially since many of the delegates were aristocrats.  Most of the states already had a two-house legislature and a governor, so that looked like an acceptable model to follow.  So that was the basic model.
</p><p>
Once it became clear that a strong president was needed, the problem was making sure he didn't become a dictator.  All the players knew what had happened to Rome.  This led to some basic safeguards.  Congress can impeach the President, but the President cannot dissolve Congress.  There are also some subtle safeguards not often mentioned; the President has a fixed term of office and it runs out at noon on inauguration day.  It's the clock, not the swearing in, that makes the new President. So an outgoing president can't stall.  (Nixon's cronies once considered that option.)  So when the time comes, the old guy has to leave, like it or not.
</p><p>
On the rights side, the debates are well known.  Again, existing models were followed; the Bill of Rights looks a lot like the Virginia Declaration of Rights.   The notion of an established religion was rejected; Britain had that, and it led to several civil wars.  So the delegates agreed on a "hands off" approach to religion.
</p><p>
All this stuff was argued out.  What made it work was that the delegates all knew that if they screwed up and a divided
nation resulted, Britain would move in.  The knowledge that one is to be hanged at dawn concentrates the mind wonderfully.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the weirder bits of right-wing belief is that U.S. Constitution was " divinely inspired " [ ldschurchnews.com ] .
This is an official Mormon position , and some of the more right-wing Christian groups have picked up on it .
What 's so weird about this is that we have the Federalist Paper and the debates of the Constitutional Convention .
There 's not much mystery about how it was put together .
The major players all wrote about their thinking .
The basic parameters of the U.S. Constitution came from the constraints the authors faced .
They already had the Articles of Confederation of the Continental Congress in force , which set up a confederation of states , somewhat like the United Nations or the European Union .
This was a weak federation , and it ran into the problems of most weak federations - too many decisions required unanimity .
so it was hard to get things done .
So they needed something with more central authority .
Britain was still a threat .
" We must hang together , or we will assuredly all hang separately " .
The key point to remember about the Constitutional Convention was that the delegates knew that if their new government broke down , they 'd end up being hung for treason by British soldiers .
( This was not a theoretical risk .
See War of 1812 .
) But the states did n't want too much central authority .
Almost everyone agreed that a king was a bad idea .
( Well , Hamilton wanted a king .
He wanted to be king .
Did n't fly .
) Direct democracy was considered , but the French Revolution was getting underway at the time ( the storming of the Bastille occurred during the convention ) , and that was n't looking too good .
Especially since many of the delegates were aristocrats .
Most of the states already had a two-house legislature and a governor , so that looked like an acceptable model to follow .
So that was the basic model .
Once it became clear that a strong president was needed , the problem was making sure he did n't become a dictator .
All the players knew what had happened to Rome .
This led to some basic safeguards .
Congress can impeach the President , but the President can not dissolve Congress .
There are also some subtle safeguards not often mentioned ; the President has a fixed term of office and it runs out at noon on inauguration day .
It 's the clock , not the swearing in , that makes the new President .
So an outgoing president ca n't stall .
( Nixon 's cronies once considered that option .
) So when the time comes , the old guy has to leave , like it or not .
On the rights side , the debates are well known .
Again , existing models were followed ; the Bill of Rights looks a lot like the Virginia Declaration of Rights .
The notion of an established religion was rejected ; Britain had that , and it led to several civil wars .
So the delegates agreed on a " hands off " approach to religion .
All this stuff was argued out .
What made it work was that the delegates all knew that if they screwed up and a divided nation resulted , Britain would move in .
The knowledge that one is to be hanged at dawn concentrates the mind wonderfully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
One of the weirder bits of right-wing belief is that U.S. Constitution was "divinely inspired" [ldschurchnews.com].
This is an official Mormon position, and some of the more right-wing Christian groups have picked up on it.
What's so weird about this is that we have the Federalist Paper and the debates of the Constitutional Convention.
There's not much mystery about how it was put together.
The major players all wrote about their thinking.
The basic parameters of the U.S. Constitution came from the constraints the authors faced.
They already had the Articles of Confederation of the Continental Congress in force, which set up a confederation of states, somewhat like the United Nations or the European Union.
This was a weak federation, and it ran into the problems of most weak federations - too many decisions required unanimity.
so it was hard to get things done.
So they needed something with more central authority.
Britain was still a threat.
"We must hang together, or we will assuredly all hang separately".
The key point to remember about the Constitutional Convention was that the delegates knew that if their new government broke down, they'd end up being hung for treason by British soldiers.
(This was not a theoretical risk.
See War of 1812.
)

But the states didn't want too much central authority.
Almost everyone agreed that a king was a bad idea.
(Well, Hamilton wanted a king.
He wanted to be king.
Didn't fly.
)  Direct democracy was considered, but the French Revolution was getting underway at the time (the storming of the Bastille occurred during the convention), and that wasn't looking too good.
Especially since many of the delegates were aristocrats.
Most of the states already had a two-house legislature and a governor, so that looked like an acceptable model to follow.
So that was the basic model.
Once it became clear that a strong president was needed, the problem was making sure he didn't become a dictator.
All the players knew what had happened to Rome.
This led to some basic safeguards.
Congress can impeach the President, but the President cannot dissolve Congress.
There are also some subtle safeguards not often mentioned; the President has a fixed term of office and it runs out at noon on inauguration day.
It's the clock, not the swearing in, that makes the new President.
So an outgoing president can't stall.
(Nixon's cronies once considered that option.
)  So when the time comes, the old guy has to leave, like it or not.
On the rights side, the debates are well known.
Again, existing models were followed; the Bill of Rights looks a lot like the Virginia Declaration of Rights.
The notion of an established religion was rejected; Britain had that, and it led to several civil wars.
So the delegates agreed on a "hands off" approach to religion.
All this stuff was argued out.
What made it work was that the delegates all knew that if they screwed up and a divided
nation resulted, Britain would move in.
The knowledge that one is to be hanged at dawn concentrates the mind wonderfully.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121834</id>
	<title>Re:Open it up!</title>
	<author>Stormy Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1265978700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You do realize that <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx" title="gallup.com">less than 40\% of the US believes in evolution</a> [gallup.com]?  If you turn textbooks into a popularity contest, I don't think you'll like the result.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that less than 40 \ % of the US believes in evolution [ gallup.com ] ?
If you turn textbooks into a popularity contest , I do n't think you 'll like the result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that less than 40\% of the US believes in evolution [gallup.com]?
If you turn textbooks into a popularity contest, I don't think you'll like the result.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121078</id>
	<title>Re:Second millennium Muslim civ, quit following</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265975220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember reading that it was because the textbook manufacturers try to please the 4 more populous states when designing their books, Texas being one of them. Whatever is good for those four states is good for the entire country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember reading that it was because the textbook manufacturers try to please the 4 more populous states when designing their books , Texas being one of them .
Whatever is good for those four states is good for the entire country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember reading that it was because the textbook manufacturers try to please the 4 more populous states when designing their books, Texas being one of them.
Whatever is good for those four states is good for the entire country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31134102</id>
	<title>Well rounded is the goal</title>
	<author>eatont9999</author>
	<datestamp>1266158520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Children are sent to school to get a well rounded education. That means they should be taught both sides of the debate. Science has its teachings and so does religion. Schools are becoming progressively liberal and biased. Teachers should be presenting both sides of the debate and limited to social studies only.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Children are sent to school to get a well rounded education .
That means they should be taught both sides of the debate .
Science has its teachings and so does religion .
Schools are becoming progressively liberal and biased .
Teachers should be presenting both sides of the debate and limited to social studies only .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Children are sent to school to get a well rounded education.
That means they should be taught both sides of the debate.
Science has its teachings and so does religion.
Schools are becoming progressively liberal and biased.
Teachers should be presenting both sides of the debate and limited to social studies only.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118112</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1265966940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, did you even read what you linked to? The Wikipedia article is pretty straightforward in its rejection of the idea that the constitution was inspired by the Iroquois:<p><div class="quote"><p>There is, however, little or no evidence that the framers of the Constitution sitting in Philadelphia drew much inspiration from the League. It can even be argued that such claims muddle and denigrate the subtle and remarkable features of Iroquois government.... Yet the temptation to demonstrate that the United States Constitution was derived from a Native American form of government remains, for ephemeral political purposes, too strong for some to resist.</p></div><p>I mean, democracy is clearly not a Biblical form of government, but it seems obvious that the writers of the constitution were much more influenced by the bible than they were by the Iroquois.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , did you even read what you linked to ?
The Wikipedia article is pretty straightforward in its rejection of the idea that the constitution was inspired by the Iroquois : There is , however , little or no evidence that the framers of the Constitution sitting in Philadelphia drew much inspiration from the League .
It can even be argued that such claims muddle and denigrate the subtle and remarkable features of Iroquois government.... Yet the temptation to demonstrate that the United States Constitution was derived from a Native American form of government remains , for ephemeral political purposes , too strong for some to resist.I mean , democracy is clearly not a Biblical form of government , but it seems obvious that the writers of the constitution were much more influenced by the bible than they were by the Iroquois .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, did you even read what you linked to?
The Wikipedia article is pretty straightforward in its rejection of the idea that the constitution was inspired by the Iroquois:There is, however, little or no evidence that the framers of the Constitution sitting in Philadelphia drew much inspiration from the League.
It can even be argued that such claims muddle and denigrate the subtle and remarkable features of Iroquois government.... Yet the temptation to demonstrate that the United States Constitution was derived from a Native American form of government remains, for ephemeral political purposes, too strong for some to resist.I mean, democracy is clearly not a Biblical form of government, but it seems obvious that the writers of the constitution were much more influenced by the bible than they were by the Iroquois.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117838</id>
	<title>Re:from out of middle-field...</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1265966160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Here's an idea: let's make revisionist history a capitol offense."</p><p>What a wonderful, unintentional pun!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Here 's an idea : let 's make revisionist history a capitol offense .
" What a wonderful , unintentional pun !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Here's an idea: let's make revisionist history a capitol offense.
"What a wonderful, unintentional pun!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117462</id>
	<title>Re:People weren't aware of this?</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1266008340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>- They are busy with other things (jobs, kids) to read the stories.<br>- American media sucks, and never mentioned that Texas books are used nationwide.<br>- They have no interest (don't have kids and thus don't care about textbooks).<br>- Some other reason I can't think of right now.</p><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;This evangelical lobby has successfully had references to the American Constitution as a 'living document,'</p><p>The Constitution is not "alive" in the sense most people use it, where the words have no meaning and the Congress ignores what it says, such that the Constitution might as well not even exist.  That's why they (and I) find the reference objectionable.   In reality the Constitution is a piece-of-paper with some Laws scribbled upon it, and it remains fixed for a long long time (two decades so far), until an amendment is added to it.  Then it changes.</p><p>Also some people forget what the Democratic Party's founder (Thom. Jefferson) called the most important part of the Constitution:   <i>    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  </i></p><p>And in my opinion, this is second most important part:   "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  For example: The right to not have your cellphones monitored by Monkeyhead Dubya Bush or Barak Corpseman Obama via the Unpatriotic Act.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>- They are busy with other things ( jobs , kids ) to read the stories.- American media sucks , and never mentioned that Texas books are used nationwide.- They have no interest ( do n't have kids and thus do n't care about textbooks ) .- Some other reason I ca n't think of right now. &gt; &gt; &gt; This evangelical lobby has successfully had references to the American Constitution as a 'living document,'The Constitution is not " alive " in the sense most people use it , where the words have no meaning and the Congress ignores what it says , such that the Constitution might as well not even exist .
That 's why they ( and I ) find the reference objectionable .
In reality the Constitution is a piece-of-paper with some Laws scribbled upon it , and it remains fixed for a long long time ( two decades so far ) , until an amendment is added to it .
Then it changes.Also some people forget what the Democratic Party 's founder ( Thom .
Jefferson ) called the most important part of the Constitution : " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution , nor prohibited by it to the States , are reserved to the States respectively , or to the people .
" And in my opinion , this is second most important part : " The enumeration in the Constitution , of certain rights , shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people .
" For example : The right to not have your cellphones monitored by Monkeyhead Dubya Bush or Barak Corpseman Obama via the Unpatriotic Act .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- They are busy with other things (jobs, kids) to read the stories.- American media sucks, and never mentioned that Texas books are used nationwide.- They have no interest (don't have kids and thus don't care about textbooks).- Some other reason I can't think of right now.&gt;&gt;&gt;This evangelical lobby has successfully had references to the American Constitution as a 'living document,'The Constitution is not "alive" in the sense most people use it, where the words have no meaning and the Congress ignores what it says, such that the Constitution might as well not even exist.
That's why they (and I) find the reference objectionable.
In reality the Constitution is a piece-of-paper with some Laws scribbled upon it, and it remains fixed for a long long time (two decades so far), until an amendment is added to it.
Then it changes.Also some people forget what the Democratic Party's founder (Thom.
Jefferson) called the most important part of the Constitution:       "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
"  And in my opinion, this is second most important part:   "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
"  For example: The right to not have your cellphones monitored by Monkeyhead Dubya Bush or Barak Corpseman Obama via the Unpatriotic Act.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121392</id>
	<title>Re:A note for Christians and Atheists</title>
	<author>chewthreetimes</author>
	<datestamp>1265976600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What the hell are you going on about? Yeah I'm an atheist. All I really want is for others to stop pushing their religion on me and allow me to raise my kids religion free, which includes keeping religion out of public schools.

You can keep on believing what you want as far as I'm concerned. I have no desire to ban religion, and would, in fact, oppose it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell are you going on about ?
Yeah I 'm an atheist .
All I really want is for others to stop pushing their religion on me and allow me to raise my kids religion free , which includes keeping religion out of public schools .
You can keep on believing what you want as far as I 'm concerned .
I have no desire to ban religion , and would , in fact , oppose it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell are you going on about?
Yeah I'm an atheist.
All I really want is for others to stop pushing their religion on me and allow me to raise my kids religion free, which includes keeping religion out of public schools.
You can keep on believing what you want as far as I'm concerned.
I have no desire to ban religion, and would, in fact, oppose it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119292</id>
	<title>The conservative side is yelling about it, too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265969820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way they're telling it, though, it's the progressives that are trying to delete George Washington, Veteran's Day, and the free market.</p><p>Could it be the truth is somewhere in the middle?</p><p>Could it be that school isn't the beginning nor the end of education?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way they 're telling it , though , it 's the progressives that are trying to delete George Washington , Veteran 's Day , and the free market.Could it be the truth is somewhere in the middle ? Could it be that school is n't the beginning nor the end of education ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way they're telling it, though, it's the progressives that are trying to delete George Washington, Veteran's Day, and the free market.Could it be the truth is somewhere in the middle?Could it be that school isn't the beginning nor the end of education?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119384</id>
	<title>Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!</title>
	<author>kEnder242</author>
	<datestamp>1265970120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.gorgorat.com/#49" title="gorgorat.com">Judging Books by Their Covers</a> [gorgorat.com]</p><p>"It turned out that the blank book  had a rating  by some of  the  other<br>members! They  couldn't believe it was blank,  because they had a rating. In<br>fact, the rating for the missing book  was a little bit higher than for  the<br>two  others. The fact that there was nothing in  the  book had nothing to do<br>with the rating."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Judging Books by Their Covers [ gorgorat.com ] " It turned out that the blank book had a rating by some of the othermembers !
They could n't believe it was blank , because they had a rating .
Infact , the rating for the missing book was a little bit higher than for thetwo others .
The fact that there was nothing in the book had nothing to dowith the rating .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judging Books by Their Covers [gorgorat.com]"It turned out that the blank book  had a rating  by some of  the  othermembers!
They  couldn't believe it was blank,  because they had a rating.
Infact, the rating for the missing book  was a little bit higher than for  thetwo  others.
The fact that there was nothing in  the  book had nothing to dowith the rating.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117190</id>
	<title>A Christian's take</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266007320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Creationism does not in anyway detract from evolution.  Some people on both sides think creationism and evolution can not exist together, but they can with the <a href="http://www.goodnewsjim.com/FSS/articles/jim\_longday.html" title="goodnewsjim.com" rel="nofollow"> long day theory</a> [goodnewsjim.com].  <br> <br>

As for interpreting the constitution, I agree that it should stay in its current form unless it gets ammended.  I think the focal point is that Christian enemies are arguing for,"Seperation of Church and State" while Christians argue that the Constitution says this nowhere in it.  The only thing the Constitution says is the first ammendment where it says,"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,"  Yet, there this is interpreted that clergy may not talk about a political candidate from the puplit.  To me, this is a law abdridging freedom of speech.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Creationism does not in anyway detract from evolution .
Some people on both sides think creationism and evolution can not exist together , but they can with the long day theory [ goodnewsjim.com ] .
As for interpreting the constitution , I agree that it should stay in its current form unless it gets ammended .
I think the focal point is that Christian enemies are arguing for , " Seperation of Church and State " while Christians argue that the Constitution says this nowhere in it .
The only thing the Constitution says is the first ammendment where it says , " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ; or abridging the freedom of speech , " Yet , there this is interpreted that clergy may not talk about a political candidate from the puplit .
To me , this is a law abdridging freedom of speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Creationism does not in anyway detract from evolution.
Some people on both sides think creationism and evolution can not exist together, but they can with the  long day theory [goodnewsjim.com].
As for interpreting the constitution, I agree that it should stay in its current form unless it gets ammended.
I think the focal point is that Christian enemies are arguing for,"Seperation of Church and State" while Christians argue that the Constitution says this nowhere in it.
The only thing the Constitution says is the first ammendment where it says,"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,"  Yet, there this is interpreted that clergy may not talk about a political candidate from the puplit.
To me, this is a law abdridging freedom of speech.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121018</id>
	<title>Re:children at risk</title>
	<author>Kabuthunk</author>
	<datestamp>1265975100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It would be like saying I can't buy a beer because some children weren't taught discipline, or because genetically they can't have beer, and haven't been trained to stay away from it.</i><br>I'm sorry to say, but society is already teaching children that that's exactly the way it is.</p><p>One kid in a school is allergic to peanuts?  Noone in the entire grade is allowed to bring peanut butter and jam sandwitches, or anything involving peanuts to school any more.  I can't say for certain, but I've been told that parents are also encouraged to avoid any kind of peanut products at home as well, in case some of the oil rubs off on someone's hands, is taken to school that way, ends up on a doorknob or whatever, and the allergic child touches it.</p><p>Welcome to a world where the absolute lowest, smallest denominator creates the rules for the remainder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be like saying I ca n't buy a beer because some children were n't taught discipline , or because genetically they ca n't have beer , and have n't been trained to stay away from it.I 'm sorry to say , but society is already teaching children that that 's exactly the way it is.One kid in a school is allergic to peanuts ?
Noone in the entire grade is allowed to bring peanut butter and jam sandwitches , or anything involving peanuts to school any more .
I ca n't say for certain , but I 've been told that parents are also encouraged to avoid any kind of peanut products at home as well , in case some of the oil rubs off on someone 's hands , is taken to school that way , ends up on a doorknob or whatever , and the allergic child touches it.Welcome to a world where the absolute lowest , smallest denominator creates the rules for the remainder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be like saying I can't buy a beer because some children weren't taught discipline, or because genetically they can't have beer, and haven't been trained to stay away from it.I'm sorry to say, but society is already teaching children that that's exactly the way it is.One kid in a school is allergic to peanuts?
Noone in the entire grade is allowed to bring peanut butter and jam sandwitches, or anything involving peanuts to school any more.
I can't say for certain, but I've been told that parents are also encouraged to avoid any kind of peanut products at home as well, in case some of the oil rubs off on someone's hands, is taken to school that way, ends up on a doorknob or whatever, and the allergic child touches it.Welcome to a world where the absolute lowest, smallest denominator creates the rules for the remainder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117656</id>
	<title>Surely if people chose the school</title>
	<author>slysithesuperspy</author>
	<datestamp>1265965620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Surely if people chose the school their children went to this would be hardly an issue. Would be even less of an issue if they paid directly as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely if people chose the school their children went to this would be hardly an issue .
Would be even less of an issue if they paid directly as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely if people chose the school their children went to this would be hardly an issue.
Would be even less of an issue if they paid directly as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120478</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1265973300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't forget that even though the US was founded primarily by devout Christians, they all came from lands ruled by devout Christians.  Many came to American to escape persecution by other devout Christians (because of small insignificant theological or ecclesiastical differences).  That part gets left out a lot.<br><br>Of course, before the US it's hard to say that any nation was "founded".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget that even though the US was founded primarily by devout Christians , they all came from lands ruled by devout Christians .
Many came to American to escape persecution by other devout Christians ( because of small insignificant theological or ecclesiastical differences ) .
That part gets left out a lot.Of course , before the US it 's hard to say that any nation was " founded " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget that even though the US was founded primarily by devout Christians, they all came from lands ruled by devout Christians.
Many came to American to escape persecution by other devout Christians (because of small insignificant theological or ecclesiastical differences).
That part gets left out a lot.Of course, before the US it's hard to say that any nation was "founded".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117486</id>
	<title>Re:People weren't aware of this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265965200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Other than a very tiny minority, Americans are viciously relgionist and many of those who aren't, don't read the news. With the manipulation of textbooks, the willfully ignorant are further masturbated in their ignorance.</p><p>That is why the US is becoming a decreasingly competent and increasingly toxic country. We are getting what we collectively deserve, though some of us individually don't deserve it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Other than a very tiny minority , Americans are viciously relgionist and many of those who are n't , do n't read the news .
With the manipulation of textbooks , the willfully ignorant are further masturbated in their ignorance.That is why the US is becoming a decreasingly competent and increasingly toxic country .
We are getting what we collectively deserve , though some of us individually do n't deserve it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other than a very tiny minority, Americans are viciously relgionist and many of those who aren't, don't read the news.
With the manipulation of textbooks, the willfully ignorant are further masturbated in their ignorance.That is why the US is becoming a decreasingly competent and increasingly toxic country.
We are getting what we collectively deserve, though some of us individually don't deserve it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122380</id>
	<title>Re:How bad could it be?</title>
	<author>ajs</author>
	<datestamp>1265981040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To quote Wikipedia because I'm too tired to combat this nonsense anymore:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Born in New Haven, Connecticut, Bush [...] was raised in Midland and Houston, Texas [...] As a child, Bush attended public schools in Midland, Texas until the family moved to Houston after he completed seventh grade. He then went to The Kinkaid School, a prep school in Houston, for two years. [...] and finished his high school years at Phillips Academy, a boarding school (then all-male) in Andover, Massachusetts</p></div><p>Yes, he's a Texan as much as I'm a New Englander, even though I was born in L.A. His family has spent a good deal of time in New England and Texas and it would be entirely fair for him to claim to be either.</p><p>Now, the contrary point <i>is</i> reasonable. You can certainly say that when Bush referred to people from the east coast as if he wasn't one of them that that was disingenuous because he was born here and spent much of his later educational years here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To quote Wikipedia because I 'm too tired to combat this nonsense anymore : Born in New Haven , Connecticut , Bush [ ... ] was raised in Midland and Houston , Texas [ ... ] As a child , Bush attended public schools in Midland , Texas until the family moved to Houston after he completed seventh grade .
He then went to The Kinkaid School , a prep school in Houston , for two years .
[ ... ] and finished his high school years at Phillips Academy , a boarding school ( then all-male ) in Andover , MassachusettsYes , he 's a Texan as much as I 'm a New Englander , even though I was born in L.A. His family has spent a good deal of time in New England and Texas and it would be entirely fair for him to claim to be either.Now , the contrary point is reasonable .
You can certainly say that when Bush referred to people from the east coast as if he was n't one of them that that was disingenuous because he was born here and spent much of his later educational years here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To quote Wikipedia because I'm too tired to combat this nonsense anymore:Born in New Haven, Connecticut, Bush [...] was raised in Midland and Houston, Texas [...] As a child, Bush attended public schools in Midland, Texas until the family moved to Houston after he completed seventh grade.
He then went to The Kinkaid School, a prep school in Houston, for two years.
[...] and finished his high school years at Phillips Academy, a boarding school (then all-male) in Andover, MassachusettsYes, he's a Texan as much as I'm a New Englander, even though I was born in L.A. His family has spent a good deal of time in New England and Texas and it would be entirely fair for him to claim to be either.Now, the contrary point is reasonable.
You can certainly say that when Bush referred to people from the east coast as if he wasn't one of them that that was disingenuous because he was born here and spent much of his later educational years here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122632</id>
	<title>Country not founded on Christian values</title>
	<author>CosaNostra Pizza Inc</author>
	<datestamp>1265982240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of the founding fathers were deists (as opposed to theists)...There are dozens of written quotes by the FF to support that, including Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists.  The words "jesus" and "God" are found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution (except in the date as "In the Year of Our Lord").  The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment specifies Separation of Church and State.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the founding fathers were deists ( as opposed to theists ) ...There are dozens of written quotes by the FF to support that , including Thomas Jefferson 's letter to the Danbury Baptists .
The words " jesus " and " God " are found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution ( except in the date as " In the Year of Our Lord " ) .
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment specifies Separation of Church and State .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the founding fathers were deists (as opposed to theists)...There are dozens of written quotes by the FF to support that, including Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists.
The words "jesus" and "God" are found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution (except in the date as "In the Year of Our Lord").
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment specifies Separation of Church and State.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118318</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265967360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Incidentally the point of my <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1548166&amp;cid=31118112" title="slashdot.org">previous argument</a> [slashdot.org] was not so much that you are wrong, but rather that you need to improve the quality of your logic.  Basing your argument on a faulty premise is a bad idea, even if the end result is correct.  Be intellectually honest, it's the right thing to do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Incidentally the point of my previous argument [ slashdot.org ] was not so much that you are wrong , but rather that you need to improve the quality of your logic .
Basing your argument on a faulty premise is a bad idea , even if the end result is correct .
Be intellectually honest , it 's the right thing to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Incidentally the point of my previous argument [slashdot.org] was not so much that you are wrong, but rather that you need to improve the quality of your logic.
Basing your argument on a faulty premise is a bad idea, even if the end result is correct.
Be intellectually honest, it's the right thing to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117756</id>
	<title>Re:"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>geoffrobinson</author>
	<datestamp>1265965920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like an amendment?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like an amendment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like an amendment?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119766</id>
	<title>Re:"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1265971020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering that the bill of rights themselves were passed to specify partly what the government was protecting and to put further limitations on what the government can demand, it's curious that the anti-gun lobby insists that the second is a black sheep that was mean to restrict something in the general population.</p><p>Not to mention, the militia was, as I understand, at the time, often any male of age able to shoot a rifle.  The militia (well regulated, meaning well-armed and provided for) was a statement of purpose on why "the people" must be allowed to keep and bear arms, as it was envisioned that the militias (remember, statehood was much bigger back then than it is now) would defend the local states from a potentially tyrannical federal government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering that the bill of rights themselves were passed to specify partly what the government was protecting and to put further limitations on what the government can demand , it 's curious that the anti-gun lobby insists that the second is a black sheep that was mean to restrict something in the general population.Not to mention , the militia was , as I understand , at the time , often any male of age able to shoot a rifle .
The militia ( well regulated , meaning well-armed and provided for ) was a statement of purpose on why " the people " must be allowed to keep and bear arms , as it was envisioned that the militias ( remember , statehood was much bigger back then than it is now ) would defend the local states from a potentially tyrannical federal government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering that the bill of rights themselves were passed to specify partly what the government was protecting and to put further limitations on what the government can demand, it's curious that the anti-gun lobby insists that the second is a black sheep that was mean to restrict something in the general population.Not to mention, the militia was, as I understand, at the time, often any male of age able to shoot a rifle.
The militia (well regulated, meaning well-armed and provided for) was a statement of purpose on why "the people" must be allowed to keep and bear arms, as it was envisioned that the militias (remember, statehood was much bigger back then than it is now) would defend the local states from a potentially tyrannical federal government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117902</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>lbmouse</author>
	<datestamp>1265966400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't pray in my school and I wo n't think in your church .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117236</id>
	<title>Refreshing!</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1266007500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Re-writing history to inure a political viewpoint? This is nothing new. At least these folks are being honest about their goals; that's a refreshing approach from narrow-minded zealots.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Re-writing history to inure a political viewpoint ?
This is nothing new .
At least these folks are being honest about their goals ; that 's a refreshing approach from narrow-minded zealots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Re-writing history to inure a political viewpoint?
This is nothing new.
At least these folks are being honest about their goals; that's a refreshing approach from narrow-minded zealots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118146</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>geoffrobinson</author>
	<datestamp>1265967000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a Presbyterian, I can assure you that the federal system of divided powers owes a lot to the Reformed/Calvinist viewpoint and the structure of the Presbyterian model of church government.</p><p>However, "influenced" is different than being an explicitly Christian country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a Presbyterian , I can assure you that the federal system of divided powers owes a lot to the Reformed/Calvinist viewpoint and the structure of the Presbyterian model of church government.However , " influenced " is different than being an explicitly Christian country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a Presbyterian, I can assure you that the federal system of divided powers owes a lot to the Reformed/Calvinist viewpoint and the structure of the Presbyterian model of church government.However, "influenced" is different than being an explicitly Christian country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122900</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory Richard Feynman on Textbooks</title>
	<author>illtud</author>
	<datestamp>1265983680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod up to the max, please!</p><p>I'm so happy that somebody's still reading Feynman.</p><p>Can we make him compulsory for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.? If you haven't read him, do so, you'll enjoy it. I guarantee it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod up to the max , please ! I 'm so happy that somebody 's still reading Feynman.Can we make him compulsory for /. ?
If you have n't read him , do so , you 'll enjoy it .
I guarantee it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod up to the max, please!I'm so happy that somebody's still reading Feynman.Can we make him compulsory for /.?
If you haven't read him, do so, you'll enjoy it.
I guarantee it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117996</id>
	<title>Screw you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265966640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>F*** you stupid morons with your evolutionary theory. It is more faith based than any religion outside of Scientology. House of cards that needs to come down soon. Where is your evidence? Where? Again, didn't hear you? What? That's what I thought. Good luck with that whole "we came from nothing" bullshiite. Go sell crazy somewhere else, we are all full up here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>F * * * you stupid morons with your evolutionary theory .
It is more faith based than any religion outside of Scientology .
House of cards that needs to come down soon .
Where is your evidence ?
Where ? Again , did n't hear you ?
What ? That 's what I thought .
Good luck with that whole " we came from nothing " bullshiite .
Go sell crazy somewhere else , we are all full up here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>F*** you stupid morons with your evolutionary theory.
It is more faith based than any religion outside of Scientology.
House of cards that needs to come down soon.
Where is your evidence?
Where? Again, didn't hear you?
What? That's what I thought.
Good luck with that whole "we came from nothing" bullshiite.
Go sell crazy somewhere else, we are all full up here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31124684</id>
	<title>Re:Afraid of Creationism?</title>
	<author>arminw</author>
	<datestamp>1266000060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....The evidence for evolution is vast....</p><p>Can you give some examples of that? What I mean by that is actual observed FACTS, not interpretations or conjectures. By its very nature, evolution is historical. No one is making evolution happen today. Besides that, there is no consistent definition of the word "evolution". If that word is applied in the sense of bacteria gaining new capabilities or an organism becoming resistant to some environmental factor, then that can be indeed shown scientifically today. On the other hand if it is applied to one kind of organism changing gradually over time into another kind of organism, then that is not a scientific fact.</p><p>Scientists have tried to make revolution happened in the laboratory, by raising thousands or millions of generations of E. coli or fruit flies. So far at least, E. coli are still that and fruit flies still remained fruit flies. Scientists have bred E. coli with new capabilities and grotesque fruit flies with extra heads and other anomalies. In the end however, they were still recognizable as fruit flies.</p><p>One of the many things that evolutionists postulate, is that birds evolved from reptiles. That is an assertion that cannot be proven by any modern scientific procedure. To get around that problem, evolutionists resort to immense periods of time. The problem is, that even in tens of millions of years, there is not enough time to turn a heavy earthbound creature into an efficient flying machine.</p><p>Of course creation cannot be proven scientifically. In the end, there are many aspects of evolution that have to be believed by faith, because they cannot be demonstrated in the laboratory neither have they been observed as occurring today in nature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....The evidence for evolution is vast....Can you give some examples of that ?
What I mean by that is actual observed FACTS , not interpretations or conjectures .
By its very nature , evolution is historical .
No one is making evolution happen today .
Besides that , there is no consistent definition of the word " evolution " .
If that word is applied in the sense of bacteria gaining new capabilities or an organism becoming resistant to some environmental factor , then that can be indeed shown scientifically today .
On the other hand if it is applied to one kind of organism changing gradually over time into another kind of organism , then that is not a scientific fact.Scientists have tried to make revolution happened in the laboratory , by raising thousands or millions of generations of E. coli or fruit flies .
So far at least , E. coli are still that and fruit flies still remained fruit flies .
Scientists have bred E. coli with new capabilities and grotesque fruit flies with extra heads and other anomalies .
In the end however , they were still recognizable as fruit flies.One of the many things that evolutionists postulate , is that birds evolved from reptiles .
That is an assertion that can not be proven by any modern scientific procedure .
To get around that problem , evolutionists resort to immense periods of time .
The problem is , that even in tens of millions of years , there is not enough time to turn a heavy earthbound creature into an efficient flying machine.Of course creation can not be proven scientifically .
In the end , there are many aspects of evolution that have to be believed by faith , because they can not be demonstrated in the laboratory neither have they been observed as occurring today in nature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....The evidence for evolution is vast....Can you give some examples of that?
What I mean by that is actual observed FACTS, not interpretations or conjectures.
By its very nature, evolution is historical.
No one is making evolution happen today.
Besides that, there is no consistent definition of the word "evolution".
If that word is applied in the sense of bacteria gaining new capabilities or an organism becoming resistant to some environmental factor, then that can be indeed shown scientifically today.
On the other hand if it is applied to one kind of organism changing gradually over time into another kind of organism, then that is not a scientific fact.Scientists have tried to make revolution happened in the laboratory, by raising thousands or millions of generations of E. coli or fruit flies.
So far at least, E. coli are still that and fruit flies still remained fruit flies.
Scientists have bred E. coli with new capabilities and grotesque fruit flies with extra heads and other anomalies.
In the end however, they were still recognizable as fruit flies.One of the many things that evolutionists postulate, is that birds evolved from reptiles.
That is an assertion that cannot be proven by any modern scientific procedure.
To get around that problem, evolutionists resort to immense periods of time.
The problem is, that even in tens of millions of years, there is not enough time to turn a heavy earthbound creature into an efficient flying machine.Of course creation cannot be proven scientifically.
In the end, there are many aspects of evolution that have to be believed by faith, because they cannot be demonstrated in the laboratory neither have they been observed as occurring today in nature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120946</id>
	<title>Help!</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1265974860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>        There are numerous traditional Christian churches that do not swallow this crud being spewed by the plague of pseudo Christian new wave churches. It is time to self regulate the Christian community and shut up these low life pseudo churches that exist to feed some bums who claim to be ministers.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Any Christian worth his salt realises that God could use any tool He wished to create this world including evolution, that not every phrase in the Bible is meant to be taken in a primitive sense and that science and Christianity have no conflicts at all. As a matter of fact the doctrines embraced by these new age evangelistic groups were taught as being Satanic doctrines in seminaries for centuries. The tip off is that Christ promised His followers pain and suffering in this world for following Him. If you see a church promising a wonderful and wealthy life in this world run out the door as fast as you can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are numerous traditional Christian churches that do not swallow this crud being spewed by the plague of pseudo Christian new wave churches .
It is time to self regulate the Christian community and shut up these low life pseudo churches that exist to feed some bums who claim to be ministers .
                Any Christian worth his salt realises that God could use any tool He wished to create this world including evolution , that not every phrase in the Bible is meant to be taken in a primitive sense and that science and Christianity have no conflicts at all .
As a matter of fact the doctrines embraced by these new age evangelistic groups were taught as being Satanic doctrines in seminaries for centuries .
The tip off is that Christ promised His followers pain and suffering in this world for following Him .
If you see a church promising a wonderful and wealthy life in this world run out the door as fast as you can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>        There are numerous traditional Christian churches that do not swallow this crud being spewed by the plague of pseudo Christian new wave churches.
It is time to self regulate the Christian community and shut up these low life pseudo churches that exist to feed some bums who claim to be ministers.
                Any Christian worth his salt realises that God could use any tool He wished to create this world including evolution, that not every phrase in the Bible is meant to be taken in a primitive sense and that science and Christianity have no conflicts at all.
As a matter of fact the doctrines embraced by these new age evangelistic groups were taught as being Satanic doctrines in seminaries for centuries.
The tip off is that Christ promised His followers pain and suffering in this world for following Him.
If you see a church promising a wonderful and wealthy life in this world run out the door as fast as you can.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117926</id>
	<title>Open it up!</title>
	<author>justfred</author>
	<datestamp>1265966460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This (and other reasons) is why I believe public school textbooks should be free/open source (as in speech, as well as as in beer, aside from a nominal small printing/distribution charge - which will not be needed once all schoolchildren own iPads or other e-readers) and wiki-editable with review before publishing.  Get the textbook companies out of the business of making massive profits off the backs of our school system, and involve the public in the education process.  Find a way to review that will weaken agenda-driven edits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This ( and other reasons ) is why I believe public school textbooks should be free/open source ( as in speech , as well as as in beer , aside from a nominal small printing/distribution charge - which will not be needed once all schoolchildren own iPads or other e-readers ) and wiki-editable with review before publishing .
Get the textbook companies out of the business of making massive profits off the backs of our school system , and involve the public in the education process .
Find a way to review that will weaken agenda-driven edits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This (and other reasons) is why I believe public school textbooks should be free/open source (as in speech, as well as as in beer, aside from a nominal small printing/distribution charge - which will not be needed once all schoolchildren own iPads or other e-readers) and wiki-editable with review before publishing.
Get the textbook companies out of the business of making massive profits off the backs of our school system, and involve the public in the education process.
Find a way to review that will weaken agenda-driven edits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117912</id>
	<title>Re:How bad could it be?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265966400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GWB was born in Connecticut. The greatest trick his campaign team ever pulled was convincing the people he was Texan.</p><p>Maybe it was paid for by the people of Connecticut.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GWB was born in Connecticut .
The greatest trick his campaign team ever pulled was convincing the people he was Texan.Maybe it was paid for by the people of Connecticut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GWB was born in Connecticut.
The greatest trick his campaign team ever pulled was convincing the people he was Texan.Maybe it was paid for by the people of Connecticut.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117300</id>
	<title>from out of middle-field...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266007740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds to me like they're taking a page out of the Progressive Left's playbook. Great. Right-wing fundamentalists and left-wing Bolsheviks vying for the young skulls full of mush.</p><p>Here's an idea: let's make revisionist history a capitol offense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds to me like they 're taking a page out of the Progressive Left 's playbook .
Great. Right-wing fundamentalists and left-wing Bolsheviks vying for the young skulls full of mush.Here 's an idea : let 's make revisionist history a capitol offense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds to me like they're taking a page out of the Progressive Left's playbook.
Great. Right-wing fundamentalists and left-wing Bolsheviks vying for the young skulls full of mush.Here's an idea: let's make revisionist history a capitol offense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120078</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>babblefrog</author>
	<datestamp>1265971980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So do you propose that all religions be taught in school, or just your favorite one? I'm having a hard time seeing how this works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So do you propose that all religions be taught in school , or just your favorite one ?
I 'm having a hard time seeing how this works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So do you propose that all religions be taught in school, or just your favorite one?
I'm having a hard time seeing how this works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117380</id>
	<title>Lies my Teacher Told Me...</title>
	<author>lyapunov</author>
	<datestamp>1266008040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>James Loewen's books, are some of the best that I ever read. Lies my Teacher Told Me starts off with the story of him and a few school districts suing to get his book on the history of Miss. adopted. Fascinating and disheartening stuff.</p><p>It is amazing the damage that a few phuqtards with ignorant beliefs can have. I always shake may head in amazement at the evolutionary naysayers. I have found that asking them how antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria have come about so quickly usually shuts them up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>James Loewen 's books , are some of the best that I ever read .
Lies my Teacher Told Me starts off with the story of him and a few school districts suing to get his book on the history of Miss .
adopted. Fascinating and disheartening stuff.It is amazing the damage that a few phuqtards with ignorant beliefs can have .
I always shake may head in amazement at the evolutionary naysayers .
I have found that asking them how antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria have come about so quickly usually shuts them up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>James Loewen's books, are some of the best that I ever read.
Lies my Teacher Told Me starts off with the story of him and a few school districts suing to get his book on the history of Miss.
adopted. Fascinating and disheartening stuff.It is amazing the damage that a few phuqtards with ignorant beliefs can have.
I always shake may head in amazement at the evolutionary naysayers.
I have found that asking them how antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria have come about so quickly usually shuts them up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117970</id>
	<title>Who's actually behind these changes</title>
	<author>gwayne</author>
	<datestamp>1265966580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's an <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1001.blake.html" title="washingtonmonthly.com" rel="nofollow">article</a> [washingtonmonthly.com] I read a while back about who's behind these changes. I thought it was rather interesting but alarming at the same time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's an article [ washingtonmonthly.com ] I read a while back about who 's behind these changes .
I thought it was rather interesting but alarming at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's an article [washingtonmonthly.com] I read a while back about who's behind these changes.
I thought it was rather interesting but alarming at the same time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31124628</id>
	<title>Re:How bad could it be?</title>
	<author>ps2os2</author>
	<datestamp>1265999460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your about 10 years to late. Both Bush's have taken constitutional rights and wrung them out in the dirty dish water of the Republicans.</p><p>We are lucky to have slashdot after their trouncing of your constitutional rights</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your about 10 years to late .
Both Bush 's have taken constitutional rights and wrung them out in the dirty dish water of the Republicans.We are lucky to have slashdot after their trouncing of your constitutional rights</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your about 10 years to late.
Both Bush's have taken constitutional rights and wrung them out in the dirty dish water of the Republicans.We are lucky to have slashdot after their trouncing of your constitutional rights</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117428</id>
	<title>This is an International War over education</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266008220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I work for a large textbook company and you're just kidding yourself if you think the battle over how our children are taught is an American thing. The large textbook companies want to impose an American way of education - three-color, exceptionally expensive textbooks. We dream up ways of making our books REQUIRED that have nothing to do with making them relevant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for a large textbook company and you 're just kidding yourself if you think the battle over how our children are taught is an American thing .
The large textbook companies want to impose an American way of education - three-color , exceptionally expensive textbooks .
We dream up ways of making our books REQUIRED that have nothing to do with making them relevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for a large textbook company and you're just kidding yourself if you think the battle over how our children are taught is an American thing.
The large textbook companies want to impose an American way of education - three-color, exceptionally expensive textbooks.
We dream up ways of making our books REQUIRED that have nothing to do with making them relevant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117618</id>
	<title>It's okay</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1265965500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I expect my child to learn from many sources and question those sources regardless of how they are viewed by others. If I thought she would simply read a text book and question her own core beliefs because of that then I would be worried. But I'm not because I'm raising a person that can discover her own truth through self-education. I can help her by pointing her to the information, but only she can turn it into knowledge.</p><p>And that being said she's an atheist and I'm a Christian. I have no problem with that. Life (through God IMHO) offers us choices. It's my job to as an American citizen and also as a global citizen to ensure those choices will always be available to whoever may want them. Through any means necessary I will defend the right to dissent from religion but I will also defend the right to partake in it.</p><p>The "problem" is some people aren't okay with other people having a different viewpoint. On both sides this is happening. Those people need to be told to shut up and sit down. For too long the extreme right and left have meddled with the rest of us. This must end. Let other men be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I expect my child to learn from many sources and question those sources regardless of how they are viewed by others .
If I thought she would simply read a text book and question her own core beliefs because of that then I would be worried .
But I 'm not because I 'm raising a person that can discover her own truth through self-education .
I can help her by pointing her to the information , but only she can turn it into knowledge.And that being said she 's an atheist and I 'm a Christian .
I have no problem with that .
Life ( through God IMHO ) offers us choices .
It 's my job to as an American citizen and also as a global citizen to ensure those choices will always be available to whoever may want them .
Through any means necessary I will defend the right to dissent from religion but I will also defend the right to partake in it.The " problem " is some people are n't okay with other people having a different viewpoint .
On both sides this is happening .
Those people need to be told to shut up and sit down .
For too long the extreme right and left have meddled with the rest of us .
This must end .
Let other men be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I expect my child to learn from many sources and question those sources regardless of how they are viewed by others.
If I thought she would simply read a text book and question her own core beliefs because of that then I would be worried.
But I'm not because I'm raising a person that can discover her own truth through self-education.
I can help her by pointing her to the information, but only she can turn it into knowledge.And that being said she's an atheist and I'm a Christian.
I have no problem with that.
Life (through God IMHO) offers us choices.
It's my job to as an American citizen and also as a global citizen to ensure those choices will always be available to whoever may want them.
Through any means necessary I will defend the right to dissent from religion but I will also defend the right to partake in it.The "problem" is some people aren't okay with other people having a different viewpoint.
On both sides this is happening.
Those people need to be told to shut up and sit down.
For too long the extreme right and left have meddled with the rest of us.
This must end.
Let other men be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118556</id>
	<title>Re:Does curriculum matter anymore in the Google Ag</title>
	<author>dcollins</author>
	<datestamp>1265967960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I figure that there should be mandatory classes, at the mid to upper high school level,<br>in basic epistemology and metaphysics (i.e. meta-level topics such as): -How to think carefully, logically. -How to search. -How to formulate good questions..."</p><p>People don't learn from abstract principles first like that. All the modern cognitive research is that people need "deep content", that is, they need to learn details about a lot of specific subject matter, before they can make the connections between different fields for themselves. Which is rather common sense that, after all, we need do specific different subjects taught in school systems, just as it's always been done. Radical abstract switches from that, not a good idea.</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiP-ijdxqEc&amp;feature=player\_embedded" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiP-ijdxqEc&amp;feature=player\_embedded</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I figure that there should be mandatory classes , at the mid to upper high school level,in basic epistemology and metaphysics ( i.e .
meta-level topics such as ) : -How to think carefully , logically .
-How to search .
-How to formulate good questions... " People do n't learn from abstract principles first like that .
All the modern cognitive research is that people need " deep content " , that is , they need to learn details about a lot of specific subject matter , before they can make the connections between different fields for themselves .
Which is rather common sense that , after all , we need do specific different subjects taught in school systems , just as it 's always been done .
Radical abstract switches from that , not a good idea.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = RiP-ijdxqEc&amp;feature = player \ _embedded [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I figure that there should be mandatory classes, at the mid to upper high school level,in basic epistemology and metaphysics (i.e.
meta-level topics such as): -How to think carefully, logically.
-How to search.
-How to formulate good questions..."People don't learn from abstract principles first like that.
All the modern cognitive research is that people need "deep content", that is, they need to learn details about a lot of specific subject matter, before they can make the connections between different fields for themselves.
Which is rather common sense that, after all, we need do specific different subjects taught in school systems, just as it's always been done.
Radical abstract switches from that, not a good idea.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiP-ijdxqEc&amp;feature=player\_embedded [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118380</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265967540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We shouldn't forget, also, that our founding fathers were consummate politicians.  They knew how to play to a religious public.  So often their personal writings and public speeches are contradictory on the subject of religion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should n't forget , also , that our founding fathers were consummate politicians .
They knew how to play to a religious public .
So often their personal writings and public speeches are contradictory on the subject of religion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We shouldn't forget, also, that our founding fathers were consummate politicians.
They knew how to play to a religious public.
So often their personal writings and public speeches are contradictory on the subject of religion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117840</id>
	<title>This has aggravated me since the 80's</title>
	<author>JumpDrive</author>
	<datestamp>1265966160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My high school physics teacher 20 years ago pointed out this negligence on the part of the committee that the people actually recommending the books did not have to have a background in natural sciences.  Not one person back then had a degree in physics or hard sciences.  Later when I was in college a friend got me involved in working on some of the curriculum aspects of Texas education in physics.  One request was to review a proposed competency test for physics to be used in Texas High Schools.  I looked at the exam and couldn't answer half the questions..  Most of the questions appeared to be taken from a some kind of test for a master electrician and involved reading some complex circuit diagrams for a building or house.  It looked like someone wanted to revamp AP physics and replace it with a Vocational Electricians school.<br>
So basically this is nothing new to the Texas school system.  It's just amazing that there are a number of people who actually do succeed at getting a good education in the Texas Public School System.  A lot of this has to do with renegade teachers who throw the text books out and basically teach from the chalk board.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My high school physics teacher 20 years ago pointed out this negligence on the part of the committee that the people actually recommending the books did not have to have a background in natural sciences .
Not one person back then had a degree in physics or hard sciences .
Later when I was in college a friend got me involved in working on some of the curriculum aspects of Texas education in physics .
One request was to review a proposed competency test for physics to be used in Texas High Schools .
I looked at the exam and could n't answer half the questions.. Most of the questions appeared to be taken from a some kind of test for a master electrician and involved reading some complex circuit diagrams for a building or house .
It looked like someone wanted to revamp AP physics and replace it with a Vocational Electricians school .
So basically this is nothing new to the Texas school system .
It 's just amazing that there are a number of people who actually do succeed at getting a good education in the Texas Public School System .
A lot of this has to do with renegade teachers who throw the text books out and basically teach from the chalk board .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My high school physics teacher 20 years ago pointed out this negligence on the part of the committee that the people actually recommending the books did not have to have a background in natural sciences.
Not one person back then had a degree in physics or hard sciences.
Later when I was in college a friend got me involved in working on some of the curriculum aspects of Texas education in physics.
One request was to review a proposed competency test for physics to be used in Texas High Schools.
I looked at the exam and couldn't answer half the questions..  Most of the questions appeared to be taken from a some kind of test for a master electrician and involved reading some complex circuit diagrams for a building or house.
It looked like someone wanted to revamp AP physics and replace it with a Vocational Electricians school.
So basically this is nothing new to the Texas school system.
It's just amazing that there are a number of people who actually do succeed at getting a good education in the Texas Public School System.
A lot of this has to do with renegade teachers who throw the text books out and basically teach from the chalk board.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122730</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone Gets Their Own Truth Now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265982720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Now the Christian Fundamentalists (and the Islamic Fundamentalists) are pressing for their own 'truth'."</p><p>Point of clarification: There is no such thing as "Islamic fundamentalism". Osama Bin Laden and Co. are completely in line with Islamic doctrine when it comes to their beliefs about the world. What is sorely needed in this day and age is an Islamic version of the reformation and a huge dose of scientific and literary education.</p><p>At the time of the dark ages, Muslims where striving to advance their civilizations. Now they are trying to drag it back into the bronze age, I believe, mostly to contain the threat that higher education poses to their faith and the hold it has over their flocks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Now the Christian Fundamentalists ( and the Islamic Fundamentalists ) are pressing for their own 'truth' .
" Point of clarification : There is no such thing as " Islamic fundamentalism " .
Osama Bin Laden and Co. are completely in line with Islamic doctrine when it comes to their beliefs about the world .
What is sorely needed in this day and age is an Islamic version of the reformation and a huge dose of scientific and literary education.At the time of the dark ages , Muslims where striving to advance their civilizations .
Now they are trying to drag it back into the bronze age , I believe , mostly to contain the threat that higher education poses to their faith and the hold it has over their flocks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Now the Christian Fundamentalists (and the Islamic Fundamentalists) are pressing for their own 'truth'.
"Point of clarification: There is no such thing as "Islamic fundamentalism".
Osama Bin Laden and Co. are completely in line with Islamic doctrine when it comes to their beliefs about the world.
What is sorely needed in this day and age is an Islamic version of the reformation and a huge dose of scientific and literary education.At the time of the dark ages, Muslims where striving to advance their civilizations.
Now they are trying to drag it back into the bronze age, I believe, mostly to contain the threat that higher education poses to their faith and the hold it has over their flocks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31126892</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266076020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church &amp; State...."</p><p>The phrase preceding "thus building a wall of separation between Church &amp; State" lets us know the purpose of the "wall of separation". Take note of the part "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The obvious intention of the Founding Fathers was to protect the religious beliefs of the people from the state, not the reverse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...should " make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof , " thus building a wall of separation between Church &amp; State.... " The phrase preceding " thus building a wall of separation between Church &amp; State " lets us know the purpose of the " wall of separation " .
Take note of the part " or prohibiting the free exercise thereof " .
The obvious intention of the Founding Fathers was to protect the religious beliefs of the people from the state , not the reverse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church &amp; State...."The phrase preceding "thus building a wall of separation between Church &amp; State" lets us know the purpose of the "wall of separation".
Take note of the part "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
The obvious intention of the Founding Fathers was to protect the religious beliefs of the people from the state, not the reverse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31129394</id>
	<title>Re:"Living Constitution"</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1266052080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i> it's curious that the anti-gun lobby insists that the second is a black sheep that was mean to restrict something in the general population.</i> <br> <br>"Shall not be infringed" is not a limit on the general population.  There's nothing in there that's meant to restrict, and there's nothing in there that the anti-gun lobby uses to restrict anyone.  They may use words in there to justify their opinions as constitutional, but I've never heard any anti-gun person say the Constitution required that they take guns away from people.  Just arguments over what may and not be done that complies with the Amendment.  <br> <br> <i>well regulated, meaning well-armed and provided for</i> <br> <br>It also meant well-trained.  So it could be argued (not saying correctly, but that within the words they allow for this argument) that anyone that's completed military service would be allowed arms, and no one else.  That's the reason it is a living document.  Current laws often define the words used within the law itself.  The Constitution did not, and so the definitions of the words, as people use them, change.  So, does the Constitution change as the words change, or is it frozen in time essentially in an unused dialect with "intent" more important that the letter of the law in current definitions?  And if so, who is the governmental authority for defining those words and the intent?</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's curious that the anti-gun lobby insists that the second is a black sheep that was mean to restrict something in the general population .
" Shall not be infringed " is not a limit on the general population .
There 's nothing in there that 's meant to restrict , and there 's nothing in there that the anti-gun lobby uses to restrict anyone .
They may use words in there to justify their opinions as constitutional , but I 've never heard any anti-gun person say the Constitution required that they take guns away from people .
Just arguments over what may and not be done that complies with the Amendment .
well regulated , meaning well-armed and provided for It also meant well-trained .
So it could be argued ( not saying correctly , but that within the words they allow for this argument ) that anyone that 's completed military service would be allowed arms , and no one else .
That 's the reason it is a living document .
Current laws often define the words used within the law itself .
The Constitution did not , and so the definitions of the words , as people use them , change .
So , does the Constitution change as the words change , or is it frozen in time essentially in an unused dialect with " intent " more important that the letter of the law in current definitions ?
And if so , who is the governmental authority for defining those words and the intent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> it's curious that the anti-gun lobby insists that the second is a black sheep that was mean to restrict something in the general population.
"Shall not be infringed" is not a limit on the general population.
There's nothing in there that's meant to restrict, and there's nothing in there that the anti-gun lobby uses to restrict anyone.
They may use words in there to justify their opinions as constitutional, but I've never heard any anti-gun person say the Constitution required that they take guns away from people.
Just arguments over what may and not be done that complies with the Amendment.
well regulated, meaning well-armed and provided for  It also meant well-trained.
So it could be argued (not saying correctly, but that within the words they allow for this argument) that anyone that's completed military service would be allowed arms, and no one else.
That's the reason it is a living document.
Current laws often define the words used within the law itself.
The Constitution did not, and so the definitions of the words, as people use them, change.
So, does the Constitution change as the words change, or is it frozen in time essentially in an unused dialect with "intent" more important that the letter of the law in current definitions?
And if so, who is the governmental authority for defining those words and the intent?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120062</id>
	<title>Re:So Ignorant It Hurts</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1265971980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you are wondering why I think this point is intellectually dishonest, it is because someone coming across it and reading it would naturally conclude that Iroquois were a significant influence in forming the constitution.  Even if you had said, "One could easily argue....." it would still be somewhat misleading, because it seems to imply there is a strong case for your point, when in reality there is not.   But then overreach completely by claiming that the 'founding fathers most likely borrowed......' which isn't really supported at all.<br> <br>
I mean, seriously, one could just as easily argue that the nation was founded <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Christian-History-Constitution-Unites-America/dp/0912498005" title="amazon.com">according to biblical precepts</a> [amazon.com] as it was Iroquois.  See what I mean?<br> <br>
Cheers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are wondering why I think this point is intellectually dishonest , it is because someone coming across it and reading it would naturally conclude that Iroquois were a significant influence in forming the constitution .
Even if you had said , " One could easily argue..... " it would still be somewhat misleading , because it seems to imply there is a strong case for your point , when in reality there is not .
But then overreach completely by claiming that the 'founding fathers most likely borrowed...... ' which is n't really supported at all .
I mean , seriously , one could just as easily argue that the nation was founded according to biblical precepts [ amazon.com ] as it was Iroquois .
See what I mean ?
Cheers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are wondering why I think this point is intellectually dishonest, it is because someone coming across it and reading it would naturally conclude that Iroquois were a significant influence in forming the constitution.
Even if you had said, "One could easily argue....." it would still be somewhat misleading, because it seems to imply there is a strong case for your point, when in reality there is not.
But then overreach completely by claiming that the 'founding fathers most likely borrowed......' which isn't really supported at all.
I mean, seriously, one could just as easily argue that the nation was founded according to biblical precepts [amazon.com] as it was Iroquois.
See what I mean?
Cheers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122252</id>
	<title>Just go on like this</title>
	<author>k2r</author>
	<datestamp>1265980500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and we'll stop hearing "American scientists recently discovered that..." in Old Europe<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and we 'll stop hearing " American scientists recently discovered that... " in Old Europe : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and we'll stop hearing "American scientists recently discovered that..." in Old Europe :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31125920</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone Gets Their Own Truth Now</title>
	<author>big\_paul76</author>
	<datestamp>1266064020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You ever read any Greg Egan? He talks about how the postmodernists et. al. destroyed the civil rights movement, sorta tongue-in-cheek, presents it as a CIA plot. They managed to transform the civil rights movement from "Hey, you liberal democracies? You like to talk about great things like civil rights. Can we have some too?" to "your reality narrative is different but equally valid to my reality narrative".</p><p>When you think about it, it almost seems plausible...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ever read any Greg Egan ?
He talks about how the postmodernists et .
al. destroyed the civil rights movement , sorta tongue-in-cheek , presents it as a CIA plot .
They managed to transform the civil rights movement from " Hey , you liberal democracies ?
You like to talk about great things like civil rights .
Can we have some too ?
" to " your reality narrative is different but equally valid to my reality narrative " .When you think about it , it almost seems plausible.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You ever read any Greg Egan?
He talks about how the postmodernists et.
al. destroyed the civil rights movement, sorta tongue-in-cheek, presents it as a CIA plot.
They managed to transform the civil rights movement from "Hey, you liberal democracies?
You like to talk about great things like civil rights.
Can we have some too?
" to "your reality narrative is different but equally valid to my reality narrative".When you think about it, it almost seems plausible...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117696</id>
	<title>Re:Afraid of Creationism?</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1265965740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/" title="talkorigins.org">http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/</a> [talkorigins.org]</p><p>As to the other part, there is no scientific theory of Creationism, so there's nothing to debate.  And even if there were, it hardly seems fitting to use a school classroom as a place to debate it.  The overwhelming majority of scientists, and more to the point, scientists who work in fields related to evolution, accept that evolution happened.  Even Michael Behe, one of the founders of Intelligent Design, accepts common descent and evolution, he just wants to believe that his god somehow did something somewhere to help it along (he's what one might call a theistic evolutionist).</p><p>There is no scientific debate.  Evolution happens.  Period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ [ talkorigins.org ] As to the other part , there is no scientific theory of Creationism , so there 's nothing to debate .
And even if there were , it hardly seems fitting to use a school classroom as a place to debate it .
The overwhelming majority of scientists , and more to the point , scientists who work in fields related to evolution , accept that evolution happened .
Even Michael Behe , one of the founders of Intelligent Design , accepts common descent and evolution , he just wants to believe that his god somehow did something somewhere to help it along ( he 's what one might call a theistic evolutionist ) .There is no scientific debate .
Evolution happens .
Period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ [talkorigins.org]As to the other part, there is no scientific theory of Creationism, so there's nothing to debate.
And even if there were, it hardly seems fitting to use a school classroom as a place to debate it.
The overwhelming majority of scientists, and more to the point, scientists who work in fields related to evolution, accept that evolution happened.
Even Michael Behe, one of the founders of Intelligent Design, accepts common descent and evolution, he just wants to believe that his god somehow did something somewhere to help it along (he's what one might call a theistic evolutionist).There is no scientific debate.
Evolution happens.
Period.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117434</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_138</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_146</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31124628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_156</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31126880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_140</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31129356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_150</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_145</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31126892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_153</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_148</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31144676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_158</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31149184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31125950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31150022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31123980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31125158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_147</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31123784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_155</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31125464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31129394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31134102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31165986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31123830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_142</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31134322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_152</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31125758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31126198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31123568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31151602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31130436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_141</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31125932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31123834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31124684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_144</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_154</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31128822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31123384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31124720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_139</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31123852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_149</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31124668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_157</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_143</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31182890
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_151</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31123008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31124520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31125920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31132562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_182223_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31130436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117486
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118502
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31144676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117462
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31124668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31123568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31123834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31125464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31123784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31125758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117938
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31128822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31123980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31126892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31134322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118068
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31150022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31124520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31149184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31125920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31132562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31125950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118360
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31134102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31165986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117482
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117916
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121880
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119926
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120934
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120288
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119766
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31129394
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31123384
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121064
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121346
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119962
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31126198
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120246
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121708
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31151602
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117756
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119096
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118092
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31129356
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119840
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31125158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119706
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31125932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31158414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31124684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117716
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31124720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31126880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_182223.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31182890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31123008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117794
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31124628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31118734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31120670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31123830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31122380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121454
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117956
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31119920
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31123852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31117818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_182223.31121818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
