<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_03_0018217</id>
	<title>Officials Sue Couple Who Removed Their Lawn</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267637940000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/slashdot/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"The LA Times reports that Orange County officials are locked in a legal battle with a couple accused of <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bad-lawn2-2010mar02,0,3613612.story">violating city ordinances for replacing the grass on their lawn with wood chips and drought-tolerant plants</a>, reducing their water usage from 299,221 gallons in 2007 to 58,348 gallons in 2009. The dispute began two years ago, when Quan and Angelina Ha tore out the grass in their front yard. In drought-plagued Southern California, the couple said, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeriscaping">lush grass had been soaking up tens of thousands of gallons of water</a> &mdash; and hundreds of dollars &mdash; each year. 'We've got a newborn, so we want to start worrying about her future,' said Quan Ha, an information technology manager for Kelley Blue Book. But city officials told the Has they were violating several city laws that require that 40\% of residential yards to be landscaped predominantly with live plants. Last summer, the couple tried to appease the city by building a fence around the yard and planting drought-tolerant greenery &mdash; lavender, rosemary, horsetail, and pittosporum, among others. But according to the city, their landscaping still did not comply with city standards. At the end of January, the Has received a letter saying they had been charged with a misdemeanor violation and must appear in court. The couple could face a <a href="http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2010/03/01/1049255/orange-countys-law-breaking-landscapers.html">maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine</a> for their grass-free, eco-friendly landscaping scheme. 'It's just funny that we pay our taxes to the city and the city is now prosecuting us with our own money,' says Quan Ha."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " The LA Times reports that Orange County officials are locked in a legal battle with a couple accused of violating city ordinances for replacing the grass on their lawn with wood chips and drought-tolerant plants , reducing their water usage from 299,221 gallons in 2007 to 58,348 gallons in 2009 .
The dispute began two years ago , when Quan and Angelina Ha tore out the grass in their front yard .
In drought-plagued Southern California , the couple said , the lush grass had been soaking up tens of thousands of gallons of water    and hundreds of dollars    each year .
'We 've got a newborn , so we want to start worrying about her future, ' said Quan Ha , an information technology manager for Kelley Blue Book .
But city officials told the Has they were violating several city laws that require that 40 \ % of residential yards to be landscaped predominantly with live plants .
Last summer , the couple tried to appease the city by building a fence around the yard and planting drought-tolerant greenery    lavender , rosemary , horsetail , and pittosporum , among others .
But according to the city , their landscaping still did not comply with city standards .
At the end of January , the Has received a letter saying they had been charged with a misdemeanor violation and must appear in court .
The couple could face a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $ 1,000 fine for their grass-free , eco-friendly landscaping scheme .
'It 's just funny that we pay our taxes to the city and the city is now prosecuting us with our own money, ' says Quan Ha .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "The LA Times reports that Orange County officials are locked in a legal battle with a couple accused of violating city ordinances for replacing the grass on their lawn with wood chips and drought-tolerant plants, reducing their water usage from 299,221 gallons in 2007 to 58,348 gallons in 2009.
The dispute began two years ago, when Quan and Angelina Ha tore out the grass in their front yard.
In drought-plagued Southern California, the couple said, the lush grass had been soaking up tens of thousands of gallons of water — and hundreds of dollars — each year.
'We've got a newborn, so we want to start worrying about her future,' said Quan Ha, an information technology manager for Kelley Blue Book.
But city officials told the Has they were violating several city laws that require that 40\% of residential yards to be landscaped predominantly with live plants.
Last summer, the couple tried to appease the city by building a fence around the yard and planting drought-tolerant greenery — lavender, rosemary, horsetail, and pittosporum, among others.
But according to the city, their landscaping still did not comply with city standards.
At the end of January, the Has received a letter saying they had been charged with a misdemeanor violation and must appear in court.
The couple could face a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine for their grass-free, eco-friendly landscaping scheme.
'It's just funny that we pay our taxes to the city and the city is now prosecuting us with our own money,' says Quan Ha.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344372</id>
	<title>Re:Typical California</title>
	<author>haydensdaddy</author>
	<datestamp>1267626600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, because the other 49 states have a stranglehold on all of those qualities.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because the other 49 states have a stranglehold on all of those qualities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because the other 49 states have a stranglehold on all of those qualities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31348264</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267643700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's say you want to move to one of two new houses.  All other things being equal about the two homes, do you want to live next to a house with three cars up on blocks on the lawn with dog crap everywhere, or next to a house with nicely manicured lawn and beautiful garden?</p><p>Pretty sure nearly everyone wants to live next to the nice house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say you want to move to one of two new houses .
All other things being equal about the two homes , do you want to live next to a house with three cars up on blocks on the lawn with dog crap everywhere , or next to a house with nicely manicured lawn and beautiful garden ? Pretty sure nearly everyone wants to live next to the nice house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say you want to move to one of two new houses.
All other things being equal about the two homes, do you want to live next to a house with three cars up on blocks on the lawn with dog crap everywhere, or next to a house with nicely manicured lawn and beautiful garden?Pretty sure nearly everyone wants to live next to the nice house.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347558</id>
	<title>My own opinion - the owners are being silly</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1267640220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A couple of things - while I'm a) all in favor of protecting the environment, and b) I agree that these property appearance rules can go too far... in this case, I think I'm with the city. It's all very well to say that you should be able to do absolutely whatever you want with your own property, but the fact is that what you do with your property affects other people. Don't agree? Then you won't mind if I buy the place next to you and install a toxic waste dump on it. After all, it's my property, right? Part of what you get when you buy a property is the right to enjoy the use of it - if you're neighbor's property is such a mess that it interferes with your enjoyment of your own property, then you've lost that. Reasonable people can disagree about the balance between your rights and your neighbors, but that's why we have city/county governments and courts. It's not "anything goes inside my fence".</p><p>The summary of the article isn't accurate (what a surprise). The county is not telling them they have to grow a lawn full of grass and water it. They're telling them that they have to landscape it with at least 40\% live plants. The owner's first pass it this was apparently to just rip out all the grass. Then, when confronted, they put down the wood chips and a few token plants. They could have easily have achieved their goals of massive water use reduction by following the damn ordinance - it would have ended up being a lot less expensive for them to just plant the lot 40\% in desert plants than to dick around the way they have, and then be hauled into court.</p><p>I have very little sympathy for the couple in question here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple of things - while I 'm a ) all in favor of protecting the environment , and b ) I agree that these property appearance rules can go too far... in this case , I think I 'm with the city .
It 's all very well to say that you should be able to do absolutely whatever you want with your own property , but the fact is that what you do with your property affects other people .
Do n't agree ?
Then you wo n't mind if I buy the place next to you and install a toxic waste dump on it .
After all , it 's my property , right ?
Part of what you get when you buy a property is the right to enjoy the use of it - if you 're neighbor 's property is such a mess that it interferes with your enjoyment of your own property , then you 've lost that .
Reasonable people can disagree about the balance between your rights and your neighbors , but that 's why we have city/county governments and courts .
It 's not " anything goes inside my fence " .The summary of the article is n't accurate ( what a surprise ) .
The county is not telling them they have to grow a lawn full of grass and water it .
They 're telling them that they have to landscape it with at least 40 \ % live plants .
The owner 's first pass it this was apparently to just rip out all the grass .
Then , when confronted , they put down the wood chips and a few token plants .
They could have easily have achieved their goals of massive water use reduction by following the damn ordinance - it would have ended up being a lot less expensive for them to just plant the lot 40 \ % in desert plants than to dick around the way they have , and then be hauled into court.I have very little sympathy for the couple in question here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple of things - while I'm a) all in favor of protecting the environment, and b) I agree that these property appearance rules can go too far... in this case, I think I'm with the city.
It's all very well to say that you should be able to do absolutely whatever you want with your own property, but the fact is that what you do with your property affects other people.
Don't agree?
Then you won't mind if I buy the place next to you and install a toxic waste dump on it.
After all, it's my property, right?
Part of what you get when you buy a property is the right to enjoy the use of it - if you're neighbor's property is such a mess that it interferes with your enjoyment of your own property, then you've lost that.
Reasonable people can disagree about the balance between your rights and your neighbors, but that's why we have city/county governments and courts.
It's not "anything goes inside my fence".The summary of the article isn't accurate (what a surprise).
The county is not telling them they have to grow a lawn full of grass and water it.
They're telling them that they have to landscape it with at least 40\% live plants.
The owner's first pass it this was apparently to just rip out all the grass.
Then, when confronted, they put down the wood chips and a few token plants.
They could have easily have achieved their goals of massive water use reduction by following the damn ordinance - it would have ended up being a lot less expensive for them to just plant the lot 40\% in desert plants than to dick around the way they have, and then be hauled into court.I have very little sympathy for the couple in question here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347544</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>BeanThere</author>
	<datestamp>1267640160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If someone has a tacky garden, the neighbours are welcome to follow various recourses to coerce that person to improve their garden<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... write him little letters, ask him nicely, complain about it, help him pay for garden services, whatever<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I draw the line though at abusing government structures to create laws to force others to plant in their garden what you want to see there. It is morally wrong, no matter how much it "affects your property values".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone has a tacky garden , the neighbours are welcome to follow various recourses to coerce that person to improve their garden ... write him little letters , ask him nicely , complain about it , help him pay for garden services , whatever ... I draw the line though at abusing government structures to create laws to force others to plant in their garden what you want to see there .
It is morally wrong , no matter how much it " affects your property values " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone has a tacky garden, the neighbours are welcome to follow various recourses to coerce that person to improve their garden ... write him little letters, ask him nicely, complain about it, help him pay for garden services, whatever ... I draw the line though at abusing government structures to create laws to force others to plant in their garden what you want to see there.
It is morally wrong, no matter how much it "affects your property values".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341068</id>
	<title>Seriously you guys...</title>
	<author>gzipped\_tar</author>
	<datestamp>1267556820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>... you guys in the USA need a lawn czar to stop this kind of stupidity<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>... you guys in the USA need a lawn czar to stop this kind of stupidity ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... you guys in the USA need a lawn czar to stop this kind of stupidity ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344936</id>
	<title>Not entirely about the environment</title>
	<author>sieb</author>
	<datestamp>1267629300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From what I gathered in the article, they didn't tear out their grass to be "environmentally friendly" hippies, it sounds like that was just the overall excuse when really, they just can't afford to throw money at paying to water it. I am sure that if they stopped watering it the city would have had the same reaction to their brown grass. I don't buy the "I wouldn't want to live next to that" excuse since the article stated they erected a fence and planted plenty of plants, it's just that the city treats grass as plants and thus, easily cover the 40\% requirement to their liking. I am surprised there wasn't some sort of permit required before they could do their landscaping, then I would understand being fined, but jail time for not having grass? Sounds like something for a higher court to decide on if the city council isn't going to hear their case, trust me, I've seen it happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I gathered in the article , they did n't tear out their grass to be " environmentally friendly " hippies , it sounds like that was just the overall excuse when really , they just ca n't afford to throw money at paying to water it .
I am sure that if they stopped watering it the city would have had the same reaction to their brown grass .
I do n't buy the " I would n't want to live next to that " excuse since the article stated they erected a fence and planted plenty of plants , it 's just that the city treats grass as plants and thus , easily cover the 40 \ % requirement to their liking .
I am surprised there was n't some sort of permit required before they could do their landscaping , then I would understand being fined , but jail time for not having grass ?
Sounds like something for a higher court to decide on if the city council is n't going to hear their case , trust me , I 've seen it happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I gathered in the article, they didn't tear out their grass to be "environmentally friendly" hippies, it sounds like that was just the overall excuse when really, they just can't afford to throw money at paying to water it.
I am sure that if they stopped watering it the city would have had the same reaction to their brown grass.
I don't buy the "I wouldn't want to live next to that" excuse since the article stated they erected a fence and planted plenty of plants, it's just that the city treats grass as plants and thus, easily cover the 40\% requirement to their liking.
I am surprised there wasn't some sort of permit required before they could do their landscaping, then I would understand being fined, but jail time for not having grass?
Sounds like something for a higher court to decide on if the city council isn't going to hear their case, trust me, I've seen it happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343456</id>
	<title>Re:Lone voice of reason...</title>
	<author>joost</author>
	<datestamp>1267621020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If I lived next door I frankly wouldn't give a crap how Eco-friendly the sea of wood chips next door was - if it looked like crap and it was next to my house I would be pissed off. I'm all for creative ways to help the environment and save money - but not if it means violating ordinances that exist for very good reason.</p></div></blockquote><p>A "sea of wood chips" does not always and automatically lower your property value. It's nothing more than a negotiation point for prospective buyers. To which you can then say "my neighbors place immense value on the environment, which includes us as well, as we have benefited from them by means of A, B and C. I wish everyone around here would be like them". Bam. No value was lost, if anything it just increased.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I lived next door I frankly would n't give a crap how Eco-friendly the sea of wood chips next door was - if it looked like crap and it was next to my house I would be pissed off .
I 'm all for creative ways to help the environment and save money - but not if it means violating ordinances that exist for very good reason.A " sea of wood chips " does not always and automatically lower your property value .
It 's nothing more than a negotiation point for prospective buyers .
To which you can then say " my neighbors place immense value on the environment , which includes us as well , as we have benefited from them by means of A , B and C. I wish everyone around here would be like them " .
Bam. No value was lost , if anything it just increased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I lived next door I frankly wouldn't give a crap how Eco-friendly the sea of wood chips next door was - if it looked like crap and it was next to my house I would be pissed off.
I'm all for creative ways to help the environment and save money - but not if it means violating ordinances that exist for very good reason.A "sea of wood chips" does not always and automatically lower your property value.
It's nothing more than a negotiation point for prospective buyers.
To which you can then say "my neighbors place immense value on the environment, which includes us as well, as we have benefited from them by means of A, B and C. I wish everyone around here would be like them".
Bam. No value was lost, if anything it just increased.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341420</id>
	<title>Re:Fire hazard</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1267646520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm not sure where the city/county is trying to go here. Normally they pretend to try and be a little eco-friendly in granolaland.</p></div></blockquote><p>The city isn't trying to make them be non eco-friendly, the city is trying to make them comply with the code - and it doesn't look like the Ha's even tried.  The ordinance calls for 40\%, and guesstimating from the photograph they planted maybe 2\% and hoped the cheap ass fence would make the city overlook the missing 38\%.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure where the city/county is trying to go here .
Normally they pretend to try and be a little eco-friendly in granolaland.The city is n't trying to make them be non eco-friendly , the city is trying to make them comply with the code - and it does n't look like the Ha 's even tried .
The ordinance calls for 40 \ % , and guesstimating from the photograph they planted maybe 2 \ % and hoped the cheap ass fence would make the city overlook the missing 38 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure where the city/county is trying to go here.
Normally they pretend to try and be a little eco-friendly in granolaland.The city isn't trying to make them be non eco-friendly, the city is trying to make them comply with the code - and it doesn't look like the Ha's even tried.
The ordinance calls for 40\%, and guesstimating from the photograph they planted maybe 2\% and hoped the cheap ass fence would make the city overlook the missing 38\%.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346550</id>
	<title>Re:I lived there for better than a dozen years...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267636320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, there's a website with a map that shows you exactly where the chemicals are, what chemicals are present, and if they're a major health hazard. Sadly, I can't remember what it is. It was always fun to look at all the lethal chemicals being used in Silicon Valley. Reminds me of the HAZMAT training I got at Applied Materials and to be concerned if I ever smelled walnuts, brownies, or mushrooms. LOL!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , there 's a website with a map that shows you exactly where the chemicals are , what chemicals are present , and if they 're a major health hazard .
Sadly , I ca n't remember what it is .
It was always fun to look at all the lethal chemicals being used in Silicon Valley .
Reminds me of the HAZMAT training I got at Applied Materials and to be concerned if I ever smelled walnuts , brownies , or mushrooms .
LOL !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, there's a website with a map that shows you exactly where the chemicals are, what chemicals are present, and if they're a major health hazard.
Sadly, I can't remember what it is.
It was always fun to look at all the lethal chemicals being used in Silicon Valley.
Reminds me of the HAZMAT training I got at Applied Materials and to be concerned if I ever smelled walnuts, brownies, or mushrooms.
LOL!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347780</id>
	<title>Re:No one is wrong here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267641420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The intent of the law is probably to avoid more than 60\% of your land to be paved over. Ground cover such as mulch, etc, should be counted as part of that 40\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The intent of the law is probably to avoid more than 60 \ % of your land to be paved over .
Ground cover such as mulch , etc , should be counted as part of that 40 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The intent of the law is probably to avoid more than 60\% of your land to be paved over.
Ground cover such as mulch, etc, should be counted as part of that 40\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340894</id>
	<title>It's their lawn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267555560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as it's not presenting a danger to neighbors, they should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as it 's not presenting a danger to neighbors , they should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as it's not presenting a danger to neighbors, they should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345952</id>
	<title>Re:Lone voice of reason...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267633560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You make it sound like it's got to be one or the other - People will not treat your property as well as you will, so by valuing your own personal property you'll be an asset to the environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You make it sound like it 's got to be one or the other - People will not treat your property as well as you will , so by valuing your own personal property you 'll be an asset to the environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make it sound like it's got to be one or the other - People will not treat your property as well as you will, so by valuing your own personal property you'll be an asset to the environment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341610</id>
	<title>Ha ha!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267648320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It sounds like the Has are going to get the last laugh, Ha Ha!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like the Has are going to get the last laugh , Ha Ha !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like the Has are going to get the last laugh, Ha Ha!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31372496</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>morgauxo</author>
	<datestamp>1267811880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hah, you're right, my mistake.  I RTFA but didn't VTFP.  I guess I scrolled right past to get to the text.
<br> <br>
It is pretty sparse. I could go on about that being their right but they did have the opportunity to look into the rules before they moved there I am sure.  I looked into our neighborhood's rules pretty hard before I agreed to buy the house.
<br> <br>
I do wonder if it looks so bad from ground level.  The picture seems to have been taken from the roof of a car or something.  I bet that fence blocks the view better than it appears in the picture.  It doesn't sound like anything is written into the rule about it being ok so long as they block the view though.  Also, they certainly could have chosen a better fence for that job.
<br> <br>I wonder why the middle is so empty.  Maybe they wanted to be able to walk on it?  Those plants don't look very resilient to being stepped on.  Or maybe they are being cheap.  I bet those plants cost more than grass.  If the rule just says it must be landscaped then why not just some pea gravel?  Then again, I guess that's what they probably thought about the woodchips.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hah , you 're right , my mistake .
I RTFA but did n't VTFP .
I guess I scrolled right past to get to the text .
It is pretty sparse .
I could go on about that being their right but they did have the opportunity to look into the rules before they moved there I am sure .
I looked into our neighborhood 's rules pretty hard before I agreed to buy the house .
I do wonder if it looks so bad from ground level .
The picture seems to have been taken from the roof of a car or something .
I bet that fence blocks the view better than it appears in the picture .
It does n't sound like anything is written into the rule about it being ok so long as they block the view though .
Also , they certainly could have chosen a better fence for that job .
I wonder why the middle is so empty .
Maybe they wanted to be able to walk on it ?
Those plants do n't look very resilient to being stepped on .
Or maybe they are being cheap .
I bet those plants cost more than grass .
If the rule just says it must be landscaped then why not just some pea gravel ?
Then again , I guess that 's what they probably thought about the woodchips .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hah, you're right, my mistake.
I RTFA but didn't VTFP.
I guess I scrolled right past to get to the text.
It is pretty sparse.
I could go on about that being their right but they did have the opportunity to look into the rules before they moved there I am sure.
I looked into our neighborhood's rules pretty hard before I agreed to buy the house.
I do wonder if it looks so bad from ground level.
The picture seems to have been taken from the roof of a car or something.
I bet that fence blocks the view better than it appears in the picture.
It doesn't sound like anything is written into the rule about it being ok so long as they block the view though.
Also, they certainly could have chosen a better fence for that job.
I wonder why the middle is so empty.
Maybe they wanted to be able to walk on it?
Those plants don't look very resilient to being stepped on.
Or maybe they are being cheap.
I bet those plants cost more than grass.
If the rule just says it must be landscaped then why not just some pea gravel?
Then again, I guess that's what they probably thought about the woodchips.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340900</id>
	<title>Confusing Summary</title>
	<author>gyrogeerloose</author>
	<datestamp>1267555560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At one point, the summary says "Orange County Officials." At another point, it says "city officials." So, which is it--county or city?</p><p>Yeah, I know, I could just RTFA but the summary is still sloppy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At one point , the summary says " Orange County Officials .
" At another point , it says " city officials .
" So , which is it--county or city ? Yeah , I know , I could just RTFA but the summary is still sloppy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At one point, the summary says "Orange County Officials.
" At another point, it says "city officials.
" So, which is it--county or city?Yeah, I know, I could just RTFA but the summary is still sloppy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31350256</id>
	<title>Re:No one is wrong here...</title>
	<author>Brandybuck</author>
	<datestamp>1267610040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>... the law requires 40\% live ground cover, so they should be given a citation.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>All hail the Supreme Wisdom of the local lawmakers! They are wiser than us! They are better able to live our lives than we are ourselves! Whatever they say we must do without question! Do not question authority, worship it!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... the law requires 40 \ % live ground cover , so they should be given a citation .
All hail the Supreme Wisdom of the local lawmakers !
They are wiser than us !
They are better able to live our lives than we are ourselves !
Whatever they say we must do without question !
Do not question authority , worship it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... the law requires 40\% live ground cover, so they should be given a citation.
All hail the Supreme Wisdom of the local lawmakers!
They are wiser than us!
They are better able to live our lives than we are ourselves!
Whatever they say we must do without question!
Do not question authority, worship it!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341304</id>
	<title>Re:It's not entirely their own</title>
	<author>Volante3192</author>
	<datestamp>1267559160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're willing to chip in for the water bill then?  OC is a DESERT.  Grass does not naturally grow there in the quality and quantity that you find on the golf course.  The fact these two have taken CA's water conservation messages, messages that get commercial time during droughts, that have gigs of website data devoted them, to heart and then being smacked down by the same government that put them in place is nothing short of blisteringly ironic.</p><p>It sucks that these two are being dragged through the court system, but this should get loads of attention from on high and show just how moronic city codes like this truly are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're willing to chip in for the water bill then ?
OC is a DESERT .
Grass does not naturally grow there in the quality and quantity that you find on the golf course .
The fact these two have taken CA 's water conservation messages , messages that get commercial time during droughts , that have gigs of website data devoted them , to heart and then being smacked down by the same government that put them in place is nothing short of blisteringly ironic.It sucks that these two are being dragged through the court system , but this should get loads of attention from on high and show just how moronic city codes like this truly are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're willing to chip in for the water bill then?
OC is a DESERT.
Grass does not naturally grow there in the quality and quantity that you find on the golf course.
The fact these two have taken CA's water conservation messages, messages that get commercial time during droughts, that have gigs of website data devoted them, to heart and then being smacked down by the same government that put them in place is nothing short of blisteringly ironic.It sucks that these two are being dragged through the court system, but this should get loads of attention from on high and show just how moronic city codes like this truly are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341634</id>
	<title>It's like 1984..but with more Kentucky Bluegrass</title>
	<author>eagle8635</author>
	<datestamp>1267648440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My favorite line from the article: <br>

"Compliance, that's all we've ever wanted," said Senior Assistant City Atty. Wayne Winthers. <br>

I damn near coughed up a lung after reading that.

Sounds like they want some lawnthink.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My favorite line from the article : " Compliance , that 's all we 've ever wanted , " said Senior Assistant City Atty .
Wayne Winthers .
I damn near coughed up a lung after reading that .
Sounds like they want some lawnthink .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My favorite line from the article: 

"Compliance, that's all we've ever wanted," said Senior Assistant City Atty.
Wayne Winthers.
I damn near coughed up a lung after reading that.
Sounds like they want some lawnthink.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341808</id>
	<title>Re:property value of a lawn</title>
	<author>IntlHarvester</author>
	<datestamp>1267649760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mass-produced living is the whole point of these places, they are for people whose entire goal is to be just like everyone else. They treat the house itself like a Toyota Camry, to be bought, used for a few years, and then sold before it gets dogeared and loses its resale value.</p><p>The hilarious part is that these kinds of people are so fixed on their property value, but then the housing crisis comes along and a couple foreclosures makes their entire subdivision worthless. You would think people concerned with "value" would buy something other than an infinitely replaceable unit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mass-produced living is the whole point of these places , they are for people whose entire goal is to be just like everyone else .
They treat the house itself like a Toyota Camry , to be bought , used for a few years , and then sold before it gets dogeared and loses its resale value.The hilarious part is that these kinds of people are so fixed on their property value , but then the housing crisis comes along and a couple foreclosures makes their entire subdivision worthless .
You would think people concerned with " value " would buy something other than an infinitely replaceable unit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mass-produced living is the whole point of these places, they are for people whose entire goal is to be just like everyone else.
They treat the house itself like a Toyota Camry, to be bought, used for a few years, and then sold before it gets dogeared and loses its resale value.The hilarious part is that these kinds of people are so fixed on their property value, but then the housing crisis comes along and a couple foreclosures makes their entire subdivision worthless.
You would think people concerned with "value" would buy something other than an infinitely replaceable unit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341874</id>
	<title>Re:Fire hazard</title>
	<author>Sensiblemonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1267606920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Speaking of which... they live in a desert.</p></div><p>Prior to European settlers moving in and stomping on everything, the Los Angeles basin was a savanna with oak/walnut woodlands and not a desert.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking of which... they live in a desert.Prior to European settlers moving in and stomping on everything , the Los Angeles basin was a savanna with oak/walnut woodlands and not a desert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking of which... they live in a desert.Prior to European settlers moving in and stomping on everything, the Los Angeles basin was a savanna with oak/walnut woodlands and not a desert.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341104</id>
	<title>Re:It's their lawn</title>
	<author>iPhr0stByt3</author>
	<datestamp>1267557000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>-1 disagree<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;P</htmltext>
<tokenext>-1 disagree ; P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-1 disagree ;P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341658</id>
	<title>Re:Revenue Streams</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267648560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "follow the money" rulw in tis case leads to the water supply company. It is the one that receives a lot less money than before, and it is interested to force citizens to use more water and not less.<br>The question is, why the city officials act in the interest of the water supply company?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " follow the money " rulw in t is case leads to the water supply company .
It is the one that receives a lot less money than before , and it is interested to force citizens to use more water and not less.The question is , why the city officials act in the interest of the water supply company ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "follow the money" rulw in tis case leads to the water supply company.
It is the one that receives a lot less money than before, and it is interested to force citizens to use more water and not less.The question is, why the city officials act in the interest of the water supply company?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344138</id>
	<title>Re:Lone voice of reason...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267625400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's good to know that these people ripping up their lawn single-handedly destroyed the real estate market, and the US economy along with it!</p><p>seriously, PROPERTY VALUES? get over it. my house is worth about half of what it used to be, and it has nothing to do with my neighbor's lawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's good to know that these people ripping up their lawn single-handedly destroyed the real estate market , and the US economy along with it ! seriously , PROPERTY VALUES ?
get over it .
my house is worth about half of what it used to be , and it has nothing to do with my neighbor 's lawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's good to know that these people ripping up their lawn single-handedly destroyed the real estate market, and the US economy along with it!seriously, PROPERTY VALUES?
get over it.
my house is worth about half of what it used to be, and it has nothing to do with my neighbor's lawn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340934</id>
	<title>electrolytes</title>
	<author>Kartoffel</author>
	<datestamp>1267555740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>They should have watered their lawn with Brawndo.  It's got what plants crave.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should have watered their lawn with Brawndo .
It 's got what plants crave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should have watered their lawn with Brawndo.
It's got what plants crave.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346590</id>
	<title>Re:electrolytes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267636500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's got electrolytes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's got electrolytes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's got electrolytes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31353528</id>
	<title>1st Amendment violation?</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1267628940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
This could be construed as speech.
A pro-environmentalist statement on one's own private property.</p><p>
The constitution also prohibits depriving a person of their property rights without due process.
One of those implicit rights is (presumably) to decorate it as you like.
</p><p>
It could also be within the practice of religion.
A possible element of many christian religions is  respecting God's earth --  then the city is  interfering with the free exercise thereof,  then and there on one's own private yard,  where they should be free from government persecution of any sort.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This could be construed as speech .
A pro-environmentalist statement on one 's own private property .
The constitution also prohibits depriving a person of their property rights without due process .
One of those implicit rights is ( presumably ) to decorate it as you like .
It could also be within the practice of religion .
A possible element of many christian religions is respecting God 's earth -- then the city is interfering with the free exercise thereof , then and there on one 's own private yard , where they should be free from government persecution of any sort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
This could be construed as speech.
A pro-environmentalist statement on one's own private property.
The constitution also prohibits depriving a person of their property rights without due process.
One of those implicit rights is (presumably) to decorate it as you like.
It could also be within the practice of religion.
A possible element of many christian religions is  respecting God's earth --  then the city is  interfering with the free exercise thereof,  then and there on one's own private yard,  where they should be free from government persecution of any sort.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341128</id>
	<title>Poor Journalism...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267557300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFAs mention 1.5 years of legal wrangling. Presumably there is a process for getting your delinquent lawn back to 'standard', but the articles gloss over this. They mention a 40\% requirement for grass cover, but also mention a 'site plan' indicating that alternatives may also be acceptable. I think the journalists involved should have included more of this process in the piece.</p><p>I think the city should first come up with recommendations, then possibly begin enforcement. This couple has obviously been making progress, so I can only assume that the complaining neighbor has some swing in city hall.</p><p>The Has' response was going to the news media to get some push-back onto the city.</p><p>It is all a bit ridiculous though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFAs mention 1.5 years of legal wrangling .
Presumably there is a process for getting your delinquent lawn back to 'standard ' , but the articles gloss over this .
They mention a 40 \ % requirement for grass cover , but also mention a 'site plan ' indicating that alternatives may also be acceptable .
I think the journalists involved should have included more of this process in the piece.I think the city should first come up with recommendations , then possibly begin enforcement .
This couple has obviously been making progress , so I can only assume that the complaining neighbor has some swing in city hall.The Has ' response was going to the news media to get some push-back onto the city.It is all a bit ridiculous though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFAs mention 1.5 years of legal wrangling.
Presumably there is a process for getting your delinquent lawn back to 'standard', but the articles gloss over this.
They mention a 40\% requirement for grass cover, but also mention a 'site plan' indicating that alternatives may also be acceptable.
I think the journalists involved should have included more of this process in the piece.I think the city should first come up with recommendations, then possibly begin enforcement.
This couple has obviously been making progress, so I can only assume that the complaining neighbor has some swing in city hall.The Has' response was going to the news media to get some push-back onto the city.It is all a bit ridiculous though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341024</id>
	<title>As someone who grew up in the country...</title>
	<author>Vyse of Arcadia</author>
	<datestamp>1267556460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've always hoped that these sorts of ordinances are made up. Just scary stories you city folk tell us country bumpkins to keep us out.<br>
<br>
Right?<br>Right??</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always hoped that these sorts of ordinances are made up .
Just scary stories you city folk tell us country bumpkins to keep us out .
Right ? Right ? ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always hoped that these sorts of ordinances are made up.
Just scary stories you city folk tell us country bumpkins to keep us out.
Right?Right??</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342412</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who grew up in the country...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267611600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in many of these suburbs backyard clotheslines have been banned as well. some people reading this will think I'm making it up. Others reading it will think that everywhere has these laws.</p><p>apparently the "logic" goes that only poor people don't use electric dryers in the desert, and that perceived perception lowers the property values for the neighbors.</p><p>live free or die? hell no! these chains have resale value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in many of these suburbs backyard clotheslines have been banned as well .
some people reading this will think I 'm making it up .
Others reading it will think that everywhere has these laws.apparently the " logic " goes that only poor people do n't use electric dryers in the desert , and that perceived perception lowers the property values for the neighbors.live free or die ?
hell no !
these chains have resale value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in many of these suburbs backyard clotheslines have been banned as well.
some people reading this will think I'm making it up.
Others reading it will think that everywhere has these laws.apparently the "logic" goes that only poor people don't use electric dryers in the desert, and that perceived perception lowers the property values for the neighbors.live free or die?
hell no!
these chains have resale value.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341102</id>
	<title>Re:It's not entirely their own</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267557000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, I'm glad I don't live where you are.  The land I own is mine, the mineral rights I bought from the county the day I moved in.  Everything is mine except the 10ft of grass on the front which is allowed for road growth/utilities from the roadway.  I can do whatever I want, I've grown scottish thistle in my yard and even had bylaw come by complaining about the 'weeds'.  Until I pointed out that I enjoy making tea from them.</p><p>I'm guessing you live in the US somewhere, I live in Canada.  I have more land access and property rights then you do now...that makes me sad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , I 'm glad I do n't live where you are .
The land I own is mine , the mineral rights I bought from the county the day I moved in .
Everything is mine except the 10ft of grass on the front which is allowed for road growth/utilities from the roadway .
I can do whatever I want , I 've grown scottish thistle in my yard and even had bylaw come by complaining about the 'weeds' .
Until I pointed out that I enjoy making tea from them.I 'm guessing you live in the US somewhere , I live in Canada .
I have more land access and property rights then you do now...that makes me sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, I'm glad I don't live where you are.
The land I own is mine, the mineral rights I bought from the county the day I moved in.
Everything is mine except the 10ft of grass on the front which is allowed for road growth/utilities from the roadway.
I can do whatever I want, I've grown scottish thistle in my yard and even had bylaw come by complaining about the 'weeds'.
Until I pointed out that I enjoy making tea from them.I'm guessing you live in the US somewhere, I live in Canada.
I have more land access and property rights then you do now...that makes me sad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341010</id>
	<title>It's their government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267556340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They get to vote on how much the private property fiction applies in their community.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They get to vote on how much the private property fiction applies in their community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They get to vote on how much the private property fiction applies in their community.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341172</id>
	<title>Lichens</title>
	<author>jdigriz</author>
	<datestamp>1267557660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would lichens count as live plants for the purpose of the ordinance?  They take very little water and never need mowing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would lichens count as live plants for the purpose of the ordinance ?
They take very little water and never need mowing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would lichens count as live plants for the purpose of the ordinance?
They take very little water and never need mowing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341092</id>
	<title>In Soviet Russia...</title>
	<author>Torodung</author>
	<datestamp>1267556940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Soviet Russia, this is <i>exactly</i> the sort of thing that happened.</p><p>I suppose there's a joke about him "not getting off for his lawn," but we're all better off to souse our hopes for the Republic in some imported vodka.</p><p>So sad.</p><p>--<br>Toro</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Soviet Russia , this is exactly the sort of thing that happened.I suppose there 's a joke about him " not getting off for his lawn , " but we 're all better off to souse our hopes for the Republic in some imported vodka.So sad.--Toro</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Soviet Russia, this is exactly the sort of thing that happened.I suppose there's a joke about him "not getting off for his lawn," but we're all better off to souse our hopes for the Republic in some imported vodka.So sad.--Toro</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347920</id>
	<title>City might drop the charges</title>
	<author>tuck182</author>
	<datestamp>1267642140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.ktla.com/news/local/ktla-orange-family-possible-jail,0,7041566.story" title="ktla.com">Another article</a> [ktla.com] says the city is considering dropping the charges, since their lawn is actually now in compliance. Looks like there were just some bureaucratic hoops they didn't jump through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another article [ ktla.com ] says the city is considering dropping the charges , since their lawn is actually now in compliance .
Looks like there were just some bureaucratic hoops they did n't jump through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another article [ktla.com] says the city is considering dropping the charges, since their lawn is actually now in compliance.
Looks like there were just some bureaucratic hoops they didn't jump through.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342104</id>
	<title>Re:Lone voice of reason...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267608660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I lived next door I frankly wouldn't give a crap how Eco-friendly the sea of wood chips next door was - if it looked like crap and it was next to my house I would be pissed off.</p></div><p>That's a matter of opinion. Around here there are a few nice wood-chip yards. Then again, we are more of a shrub-society in general. Lawns aren't very popular around here; too boring.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I lived next door I frankly would n't give a crap how Eco-friendly the sea of wood chips next door was - if it looked like crap and it was next to my house I would be pissed off.That 's a matter of opinion .
Around here there are a few nice wood-chip yards .
Then again , we are more of a shrub-society in general .
Lawns are n't very popular around here ; too boring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I lived next door I frankly wouldn't give a crap how Eco-friendly the sea of wood chips next door was - if it looked like crap and it was next to my house I would be pissed off.That's a matter of opinion.
Around here there are a few nice wood-chip yards.
Then again, we are more of a shrub-society in general.
Lawns aren't very popular around here; too boring.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31361458</id>
	<title>It's California.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267734780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'Nuff said...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Nuff said.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Nuff said...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345854</id>
	<title>Re:Lone voice of reason...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267633140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sooo... Basically, you've posted this on Slashdot instead of calling Al Gore at his 27,000 square-foot mansion and telling him?  How noble of you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sooo... Basically , you 've posted this on Slashdot instead of calling Al Gore at his 27,000 square-foot mansion and telling him ?
How noble of you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sooo... Basically, you've posted this on Slashdot instead of calling Al Gore at his 27,000 square-foot mansion and telling him?
How noble of you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31349166</id>
	<title>Re:I lived there for better than a dozen years...</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1267648200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The proper solution to Prop 65 warnings is to utterly refuse to enter any structure with such a warning.  You have been warned, after all.  Explain it to the business owner or manager that you would really like to come in and spend some money but the sign has you frightened - which is what its purpose is.</p><p>The folks behind Prop 65 thought this would cause businesses to eliminate the hazardous materials from their operation and thus provide a cleaner environment.  Unfortunately, that isn't really possible.  When the ink in the pen is classified as a hazardous substance or the chemicals in the battery for the clock on the wall you are well and truely screwed.</p><p>So the answer is very simple - if even 10\% of the people in California simply said they would not enter a structure with such a warning these warnings would be removed.  The law would be revoked within a week and that would be that.</p><p>By ignoring the signs you are contributing to the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The proper solution to Prop 65 warnings is to utterly refuse to enter any structure with such a warning .
You have been warned , after all .
Explain it to the business owner or manager that you would really like to come in and spend some money but the sign has you frightened - which is what its purpose is.The folks behind Prop 65 thought this would cause businesses to eliminate the hazardous materials from their operation and thus provide a cleaner environment .
Unfortunately , that is n't really possible .
When the ink in the pen is classified as a hazardous substance or the chemicals in the battery for the clock on the wall you are well and truely screwed.So the answer is very simple - if even 10 \ % of the people in California simply said they would not enter a structure with such a warning these warnings would be removed .
The law would be revoked within a week and that would be that.By ignoring the signs you are contributing to the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The proper solution to Prop 65 warnings is to utterly refuse to enter any structure with such a warning.
You have been warned, after all.
Explain it to the business owner or manager that you would really like to come in and spend some money but the sign has you frightened - which is what its purpose is.The folks behind Prop 65 thought this would cause businesses to eliminate the hazardous materials from their operation and thus provide a cleaner environment.
Unfortunately, that isn't really possible.
When the ink in the pen is classified as a hazardous substance or the chemicals in the battery for the clock on the wall you are well and truely screwed.So the answer is very simple - if even 10\% of the people in California simply said they would not enter a structure with such a warning these warnings would be removed.
The law would be revoked within a week and that would be that.By ignoring the signs you are contributing to the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341560</id>
	<title>Re:Fire hazard</title>
	<author>Gordonjcp</author>
	<datestamp>1267647900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Speaking of which... they live in a desert. The only reason they ever had water to put on their lawn is that they import it via aqueducts over 200 miles, transforming the source from a formerly verdant valley into an arid desert. </i> </p><p>I've never understood why people would want to go and live somewhere that has no water.  Throughout the history of human settlement, we've always looked for places that have a certain amount of natural shelter, and a good supply of water.  In these places you've actually got such a scarcity of water that you have to measure how much you use and pay based on that!  Why would you want to live like that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking of which... they live in a desert .
The only reason they ever had water to put on their lawn is that they import it via aqueducts over 200 miles , transforming the source from a formerly verdant valley into an arid desert .
I 've never understood why people would want to go and live somewhere that has no water .
Throughout the history of human settlement , we 've always looked for places that have a certain amount of natural shelter , and a good supply of water .
In these places you 've actually got such a scarcity of water that you have to measure how much you use and pay based on that !
Why would you want to live like that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking of which... they live in a desert.
The only reason they ever had water to put on their lawn is that they import it via aqueducts over 200 miles, transforming the source from a formerly verdant valley into an arid desert.
I've never understood why people would want to go and live somewhere that has no water.
Throughout the history of human settlement, we've always looked for places that have a certain amount of natural shelter, and a good supply of water.
In these places you've actually got such a scarcity of water that you have to measure how much you use and pay based on that!
Why would you want to live like that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343858</id>
	<title>Re:Revenue Streams</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267623540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Permit fee for a water tank?  What does that mean?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Permit fee for a water tank ?
What does that mean ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Permit fee for a water tank?
What does that mean?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31392704</id>
	<title>Re:Fire hazard</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1267993440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i think the whole thing got started thanks to gold fever. And by the time that was over, to many had their life invested in the place...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i think the whole thing got started thanks to gold fever .
And by the time that was over , to many had their life invested in the place.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i think the whole thing got started thanks to gold fever.
And by the time that was over, to many had their life invested in the place...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343250</id>
	<title>Re:Lone voice of reason...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267619220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is your rationale behind claiming authority over another's property?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is your rationale behind claiming authority over another 's property ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is your rationale behind claiming authority over another's property?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340888</id>
	<title>I presume...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267555500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>That the prospective jail time is from contempt of court and that it is not actually a criminal offense to cover your yard in woodchips..<br> <br>
Right?  Right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That the prospective jail time is from contempt of court and that it is not actually a criminal offense to cover your yard in woodchips. . Right ? Right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That the prospective jail time is from contempt of court and that it is not actually a criminal offense to cover your yard in woodchips.. 
Right?  Right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346566</id>
	<title>Re:No one is wrong here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267636380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the correct outcome would be for the law to be tried and found just or not. IF found unjust, the law should then be changed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the correct outcome would be for the law to be tried and found just or not .
IF found unjust , the law should then be changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the correct outcome would be for the law to be tried and found just or not.
IF found unjust, the law should then be changed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347190</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>Pentium100</author>
	<datestamp>1267638780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This always seemed strange to me. When we looked for a house, we mostly looked at the location, the size of the yard, whether the house suited our needs and the price. We did not look at the neighbors lawns or lack thereof. Now we have a 2m high fence from the street and a ~1.5m high fence from the neighbors (the highest that the law allows without the consent of said neighbors).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Something as large and visible as a dead lawn makes it seem like the house is abandoned.</p></div><p>So what? It's not like they are selling the house or something.</p><p>P.S. I do not live in the US.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This always seemed strange to me .
When we looked for a house , we mostly looked at the location , the size of the yard , whether the house suited our needs and the price .
We did not look at the neighbors lawns or lack thereof .
Now we have a 2m high fence from the street and a ~ 1.5m high fence from the neighbors ( the highest that the law allows without the consent of said neighbors ) .Something as large and visible as a dead lawn makes it seem like the house is abandoned.So what ?
It 's not like they are selling the house or something.P.S .
I do not live in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This always seemed strange to me.
When we looked for a house, we mostly looked at the location, the size of the yard, whether the house suited our needs and the price.
We did not look at the neighbors lawns or lack thereof.
Now we have a 2m high fence from the street and a ~1.5m high fence from the neighbors (the highest that the law allows without the consent of said neighbors).Something as large and visible as a dead lawn makes it seem like the house is abandoned.So what?
It's not like they are selling the house or something.P.S.
I do not live in the US.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346506</id>
	<title>Re:property value of a lawn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267636080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Lawn is for shitty places where developers crap out houses onto postage stamp sized lots. You get psychotic homeowner associations and chipboard walls. Lawn says "mass production" like nothing else.</p></div><p>The fuck is wrong with you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lawn is for shitty places where developers crap out houses onto postage stamp sized lots .
You get psychotic homeowner associations and chipboard walls .
Lawn says " mass production " like nothing else.The fuck is wrong with you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lawn is for shitty places where developers crap out houses onto postage stamp sized lots.
You get psychotic homeowner associations and chipboard walls.
Lawn says "mass production" like nothing else.The fuck is wrong with you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341292</id>
	<title>exhausted their options?</title>
	<author>advocate\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1267559040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>get a facebook campaign going... get it on boingboing... far more visible... get their local news channel in on the case... after all... who reads the newspapers these days...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
<p>
make the county officials look so stupid applying a code that is crying out to be repealed...
</p><p>one can only surmise that they've upset a neighbour who's then gone through the code book with a fine toothed comb to find a way to get back at them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>get a facebook campaign going... get it on boingboing... far more visible... get their local news channel in on the case... after all... who reads the newspapers these days... ; ) make the county officials look so stupid applying a code that is crying out to be repealed.. . one can only surmise that they 've upset a neighbour who 's then gone through the code book with a fine toothed comb to find a way to get back at them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>get a facebook campaign going... get it on boingboing... far more visible... get their local news channel in on the case... after all... who reads the newspapers these days... ;)

make the county officials look so stupid applying a code that is crying out to be repealed...
one can only surmise that they've upset a neighbour who's then gone through the code book with a fine toothed comb to find a way to get back at them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344258</id>
	<title>Re:Fire hazard</title>
	<author>Courageous</author>
	<datestamp>1267626000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the most pleasant climates in the world, that's why. Although I think San Diego, where I live, is a bit better of course.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P</p><p>C//</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the most pleasant climates in the world , that 's why .
Although I think San Diego , where I live , is a bit better of course .
: -PC//</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the most pleasant climates in the world, that's why.
Although I think San Diego, where I live, is a bit better of course.
:-PC//</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344946</id>
	<title>Re:Perfect solution!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267629420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was thinking kudzu...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking kudzu.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking kudzu...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341756</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346494</id>
	<title>Why is this on slashdot?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267636020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article has nothing to do with technology and...<br>Oh wait<br><i> Quan Ha, an information technology manager for Kelley Blue Book.</i></p><p>Okay I'm satisfied.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article has nothing to do with technology and...Oh wait Quan Ha , an information technology manager for Kelley Blue Book.Okay I 'm satisfied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article has nothing to do with technology and...Oh wait Quan Ha, an information technology manager for Kelley Blue Book.Okay I'm satisfied.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341694</id>
	<title>I lived there for better than a dozen years...</title>
	<author>hallux.sinister</author>
	<datestamp>1267648860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>and I can tell you all from personal, first-hand knowledge, that California, collectively and in general, has lost its goddamned marbles.  This is exactly the kind of stupid shit that helped me conclude I should live somewhere not-foaming-at-the-mouth insane, and it's why I moved away, and why I will never move back.  Should call it Crazyifornia.  I know this sounds like a rant, but I can back this up.  Ever heard of Proposition 65?  For over a decade now, any business that uses ANY chemical or compound which is on this miles-long list of substances "known" to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defect, or other reproductive harm, has to post notices (known as Prop. 65 Warnings) in prominent locations around their businesses.  So a restaurant which cleans its windows with an ammonia-based cleaner has to have a warning, same as the business which uses such things as hydrofluoric acid, 95\% hydrogen peroxide, radioactive materials, etc.  This is just GREAT, because those signs are EVERYWHERE and it does no good, because you can't tell from them which businesses are displaying the sign because of a single little bottle of blue cleanser, and which ones have 50 barrels of phosgene (COCl2) in the basement.  This is but one of a hundred examples of Calinsanity.  Sadly, I can't think of any viable solution to the problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and I can tell you all from personal , first-hand knowledge , that California , collectively and in general , has lost its goddamned marbles .
This is exactly the kind of stupid shit that helped me conclude I should live somewhere not-foaming-at-the-mouth insane , and it 's why I moved away , and why I will never move back .
Should call it Crazyifornia .
I know this sounds like a rant , but I can back this up .
Ever heard of Proposition 65 ?
For over a decade now , any business that uses ANY chemical or compound which is on this miles-long list of substances " known " to the state of California to cause cancer , birth defect , or other reproductive harm , has to post notices ( known as Prop .
65 Warnings ) in prominent locations around their businesses .
So a restaurant which cleans its windows with an ammonia-based cleaner has to have a warning , same as the business which uses such things as hydrofluoric acid , 95 \ % hydrogen peroxide , radioactive materials , etc .
This is just GREAT , because those signs are EVERYWHERE and it does no good , because you ca n't tell from them which businesses are displaying the sign because of a single little bottle of blue cleanser , and which ones have 50 barrels of phosgene ( COCl2 ) in the basement .
This is but one of a hundred examples of Calinsanity .
Sadly , I ca n't think of any viable solution to the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and I can tell you all from personal, first-hand knowledge, that California, collectively and in general, has lost its goddamned marbles.
This is exactly the kind of stupid shit that helped me conclude I should live somewhere not-foaming-at-the-mouth insane, and it's why I moved away, and why I will never move back.
Should call it Crazyifornia.
I know this sounds like a rant, but I can back this up.
Ever heard of Proposition 65?
For over a decade now, any business that uses ANY chemical or compound which is on this miles-long list of substances "known" to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defect, or other reproductive harm, has to post notices (known as Prop.
65 Warnings) in prominent locations around their businesses.
So a restaurant which cleans its windows with an ammonia-based cleaner has to have a warning, same as the business which uses such things as hydrofluoric acid, 95\% hydrogen peroxide, radioactive materials, etc.
This is just GREAT, because those signs are EVERYWHERE and it does no good, because you can't tell from them which businesses are displaying the sign because of a single little bottle of blue cleanser, and which ones have 50 barrels of phosgene (COCl2) in the basement.
This is but one of a hundred examples of Calinsanity.
Sadly, I can't think of any viable solution to the problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31349006</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who grew up in the country...</title>
	<author>spinlight</author>
	<datestamp>1267647420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>live free or die? hell no! these chains have resale value.</p></div><p>Awesome.  Do you mind if I quote this?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>live free or die ?
hell no !
these chains have resale value.Awesome .
Do you mind if I quote this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>live free or die?
hell no!
these chains have resale value.Awesome.
Do you mind if I quote this?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340916</id>
	<title>Idiots... the rest of the county is conserving</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267555680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, it's nice to know that the city of Orange won't let residents save water while the rest of the towns on the same water system are offering bumper stickers that say "I killed my lawn.. ask me how"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it 's nice to know that the city of Orange wo n't let residents save water while the rest of the towns on the same water system are offering bumper stickers that say " I killed my lawn.. ask me how "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it's nice to know that the city of Orange won't let residents save water while the rest of the towns on the same water system are offering bumper stickers that say "I killed my lawn.. ask me how"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341050</id>
	<title>How do you define Irony?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267556640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/home\_blog/2009/06/lowwater-gardening-emily-green-ladwp-lawn-rebate-drought-tolerant.html" title="latimes.com">LA Offers upto a $2000 rebate for ripping up your lawn</a> [latimes.com]</p><p>Seems that in June of '09, LA wanted to try to catch up with LasVegas who is paying people to rip up their lawns as well.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>the intent of the cash-for-grass program is to reduce the 50 to 90 inches of water routinely applied to turf every year. Drought-tolerant substitutes may require just 15 -- in keeping with L.A.'s average annual rainfall.</p><p>For information on the L.A. Department of Water and Power program, call the regional water agency rebate hotline at<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..... The recording will say funding for regionwide programs is exhausted, but keep listening. DWP customers can press 3 for more details on their rebate.</p></div><p>Also, here's the link to the <a href="http://www.socalwatersmart.com/index.php?option=com\_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=77&amp;Itemid=102" title="socalwatersmart.com">SoCal Turf Removal Program.</a> [socalwatersmart.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>LA Offers upto a $ 2000 rebate for ripping up your lawn [ latimes.com ] Seems that in June of '09 , LA wanted to try to catch up with LasVegas who is paying people to rip up their lawns as well.the intent of the cash-for-grass program is to reduce the 50 to 90 inches of water routinely applied to turf every year .
Drought-tolerant substitutes may require just 15 -- in keeping with L.A. 's average annual rainfall.For information on the L.A. Department of Water and Power program , call the regional water agency rebate hotline at ..... The recording will say funding for regionwide programs is exhausted , but keep listening .
DWP customers can press 3 for more details on their rebate.Also , here 's the link to the SoCal Turf Removal Program .
[ socalwatersmart.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LA Offers upto a $2000 rebate for ripping up your lawn [latimes.com]Seems that in June of '09, LA wanted to try to catch up with LasVegas who is paying people to rip up their lawns as well.the intent of the cash-for-grass program is to reduce the 50 to 90 inches of water routinely applied to turf every year.
Drought-tolerant substitutes may require just 15 -- in keeping with L.A.'s average annual rainfall.For information on the L.A. Department of Water and Power program, call the regional water agency rebate hotline at ..... The recording will say funding for regionwide programs is exhausted, but keep listening.
DWP customers can press 3 for more details on their rebate.Also, here's the link to the SoCal Turf Removal Program.
[socalwatersmart.com]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31349990</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>rahvin112</author>
	<datestamp>1267608720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You didn't look at the picture in the article did you?</p><p>They have a big dead lawn with 6 plants planted between a fence and the sidewalk. It's the most god awfull thing I've ever seen and I'm a HUGE fan of Xeroscaping. They didn't Xeroscape, they let the lawn die then planted half a dozen plants along the sidewalk, in fact the bare dirt behind the fence is going to be a dust hazzard in the summer. They could have easily Xeroscaped and hit the 40\% plant rule. Try opening the article and looking at the picture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You did n't look at the picture in the article did you ? They have a big dead lawn with 6 plants planted between a fence and the sidewalk .
It 's the most god awfull thing I 've ever seen and I 'm a HUGE fan of Xeroscaping .
They did n't Xeroscape , they let the lawn die then planted half a dozen plants along the sidewalk , in fact the bare dirt behind the fence is going to be a dust hazzard in the summer .
They could have easily Xeroscaped and hit the 40 \ % plant rule .
Try opening the article and looking at the picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You didn't look at the picture in the article did you?They have a big dead lawn with 6 plants planted between a fence and the sidewalk.
It's the most god awfull thing I've ever seen and I'm a HUGE fan of Xeroscaping.
They didn't Xeroscape, they let the lawn die then planted half a dozen plants along the sidewalk, in fact the bare dirt behind the fence is going to be a dust hazzard in the summer.
They could have easily Xeroscaped and hit the 40\% plant rule.
Try opening the article and looking at the picture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342464</id>
	<title>Re:Lone voice of reason...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267612020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're too kind. That fucking dumbfuck has an extended idea of property that flows to the neighbors' and their neighbors' yards. Never mind anyone elses property or liberties or any other hippie bullshit. He probably even has a paper that proves he's right so nothing else needs to be considered.</p><p>I don't know what's it with America, but in other countries this kind of gigantic asshattery usually doesn't pay off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're too kind .
That fucking dumbfuck has an extended idea of property that flows to the neighbors ' and their neighbors ' yards .
Never mind anyone elses property or liberties or any other hippie bullshit .
He probably even has a paper that proves he 's right so nothing else needs to be considered.I do n't know what 's it with America , but in other countries this kind of gigantic asshattery usually does n't pay off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're too kind.
That fucking dumbfuck has an extended idea of property that flows to the neighbors' and their neighbors' yards.
Never mind anyone elses property or liberties or any other hippie bullshit.
He probably even has a paper that proves he's right so nothing else needs to be considered.I don't know what's it with America, but in other countries this kind of gigantic asshattery usually doesn't pay off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340998</id>
	<title>Re:It's their lawn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267556220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So If I want to decorate my dead lawn with old refrigerators and non-working cars your okay with that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So If I want to decorate my dead lawn with old refrigerators and non-working cars your okay with that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So If I want to decorate my dead lawn with old refrigerators and non-working cars your okay with that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31349114</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267647900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're not understanding something. Your neighbor doesn't care about YOUR home's value, he cares about HIS. And if you rip up your lawn, paint your house pink, and do all sorts of other unaesthetic things, HIS value will go down. I'm not saying that this justifies him having ANY power whatsoever to stop you, but that's why he would care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not understanding something .
Your neighbor does n't care about YOUR home 's value , he cares about HIS .
And if you rip up your lawn , paint your house pink , and do all sorts of other unaesthetic things , HIS value will go down .
I 'm not saying that this justifies him having ANY power whatsoever to stop you , but that 's why he would care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not understanding something.
Your neighbor doesn't care about YOUR home's value, he cares about HIS.
And if you rip up your lawn, paint your house pink, and do all sorts of other unaesthetic things, HIS value will go down.
I'm not saying that this justifies him having ANY power whatsoever to stop you, but that's why he would care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341258</id>
	<title>Re:It's not entirely their own</title>
	<author>Nikker</author>
	<datestamp>1267558620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They definitely have HOA's in Canada but mostly just in the suburbs and cities.  Canada has a lot of land outside the suburbs where you can get an acre lot easily, you can do what ever you like on it but there are definitely areas just like this one lives in where if enough people in your neighborhood whine enough they can have your house painted, kill a renno plan or tell you what kind of tree to plant in your front yard.  It just matters who you live beside<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>They definitely have HOA 's in Canada but mostly just in the suburbs and cities .
Canada has a lot of land outside the suburbs where you can get an acre lot easily , you can do what ever you like on it but there are definitely areas just like this one lives in where if enough people in your neighborhood whine enough they can have your house painted , kill a renno plan or tell you what kind of tree to plant in your front yard .
It just matters who you live beside ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They definitely have HOA's in Canada but mostly just in the suburbs and cities.
Canada has a lot of land outside the suburbs where you can get an acre lot easily, you can do what ever you like on it but there are definitely areas just like this one lives in where if enough people in your neighborhood whine enough they can have your house painted, kill a renno plan or tell you what kind of tree to plant in your front yard.
It just matters who you live beside ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31352628</id>
	<title>Re:property value of a lawn</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1267621680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that when you have a postage-stamp-sized lot, you really NEED those restrictions, or else you do have all kinds of problems with people not maintaining their houses, painting them insane colors, leaving non-running cars lying around, etc., and making the whole neighborhood look like a ghetto.  It only takes a few people to do things like this and suddenly no one with money wants to live there, and the house values plummet.  Who would want to pay $250k, for instance, to live in a nice subdivision next to someone with an electric blue house with 12 dead cars parked in the yard?</p><p>Having a house in the woods sounds great, and I hope to reach that point one day in the future, but not everyone can afford that.  That much land costs a lot of money, proportionate to how close you are to desirable areas in a city.  Land values in a moderately dense city are very high, so if you want a house that costs $150k or less, you really have no choice but a postage-stamp-size lot.  It's not the developers' fault, that's just what land costs because of the free market.  Also, the more land around a house for a given city population, the more sprawl, the longer your commute, etc.  You simply can't pack 2 million people into a city with a 5-acre lot around each home.</p><p>Of course, you could move out to the country to have 40 acres and a house in the woods, but even those places aren't that cheap, and this also means you have a really bad commute, or you're retired or work from home.  I'm sure that a significant portion of the population would prefer to live in a small town or rural setting, but most choose to live in a city instead because that gives them access to high-paying jobs which simply don't exist in small towns and rural areas.  If I lived in a rural area, I'd probably have to work at a gas station or something, and then I still wouldn't be able to afford a decent house in the woods on that salary; I'd be stuck living in a shitty trailer in a trailer park with neighbors hopped up on meth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that when you have a postage-stamp-sized lot , you really NEED those restrictions , or else you do have all kinds of problems with people not maintaining their houses , painting them insane colors , leaving non-running cars lying around , etc. , and making the whole neighborhood look like a ghetto .
It only takes a few people to do things like this and suddenly no one with money wants to live there , and the house values plummet .
Who would want to pay $ 250k , for instance , to live in a nice subdivision next to someone with an electric blue house with 12 dead cars parked in the yard ? Having a house in the woods sounds great , and I hope to reach that point one day in the future , but not everyone can afford that .
That much land costs a lot of money , proportionate to how close you are to desirable areas in a city .
Land values in a moderately dense city are very high , so if you want a house that costs $ 150k or less , you really have no choice but a postage-stamp-size lot .
It 's not the developers ' fault , that 's just what land costs because of the free market .
Also , the more land around a house for a given city population , the more sprawl , the longer your commute , etc .
You simply ca n't pack 2 million people into a city with a 5-acre lot around each home.Of course , you could move out to the country to have 40 acres and a house in the woods , but even those places are n't that cheap , and this also means you have a really bad commute , or you 're retired or work from home .
I 'm sure that a significant portion of the population would prefer to live in a small town or rural setting , but most choose to live in a city instead because that gives them access to high-paying jobs which simply do n't exist in small towns and rural areas .
If I lived in a rural area , I 'd probably have to work at a gas station or something , and then I still would n't be able to afford a decent house in the woods on that salary ; I 'd be stuck living in a shitty trailer in a trailer park with neighbors hopped up on meth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that when you have a postage-stamp-sized lot, you really NEED those restrictions, or else you do have all kinds of problems with people not maintaining their houses, painting them insane colors, leaving non-running cars lying around, etc., and making the whole neighborhood look like a ghetto.
It only takes a few people to do things like this and suddenly no one with money wants to live there, and the house values plummet.
Who would want to pay $250k, for instance, to live in a nice subdivision next to someone with an electric blue house with 12 dead cars parked in the yard?Having a house in the woods sounds great, and I hope to reach that point one day in the future, but not everyone can afford that.
That much land costs a lot of money, proportionate to how close you are to desirable areas in a city.
Land values in a moderately dense city are very high, so if you want a house that costs $150k or less, you really have no choice but a postage-stamp-size lot.
It's not the developers' fault, that's just what land costs because of the free market.
Also, the more land around a house for a given city population, the more sprawl, the longer your commute, etc.
You simply can't pack 2 million people into a city with a 5-acre lot around each home.Of course, you could move out to the country to have 40 acres and a house in the woods, but even those places aren't that cheap, and this also means you have a really bad commute, or you're retired or work from home.
I'm sure that a significant portion of the population would prefer to live in a small town or rural setting, but most choose to live in a city instead because that gives them access to high-paying jobs which simply don't exist in small towns and rural areas.
If I lived in a rural area, I'd probably have to work at a gas station or something, and then I still wouldn't be able to afford a decent house in the woods on that salary; I'd be stuck living in a shitty trailer in a trailer park with neighbors hopped up on meth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341140</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>MrNaz</author>
	<datestamp>1267557420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in a planned estate, fairly upmarket in appearance. Most of the houses have "arid landscape" themed gardens, and all plants are selected for low water requirements.</p><p>I can attest that, if done well, drought resistant garden design can look very, very nice. It's also far easier and cheaper to maintain, as weeds don't grow as readily. Our garden is made up with the hardiest plants from central Australia, thus we can literally starve weeds to death while the rest of the plants carry on fine. Having big, lush, high water gardens means that hardy weeds infest it easily and you're left fighting a losing battle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in a planned estate , fairly upmarket in appearance .
Most of the houses have " arid landscape " themed gardens , and all plants are selected for low water requirements.I can attest that , if done well , drought resistant garden design can look very , very nice .
It 's also far easier and cheaper to maintain , as weeds do n't grow as readily .
Our garden is made up with the hardiest plants from central Australia , thus we can literally starve weeds to death while the rest of the plants carry on fine .
Having big , lush , high water gardens means that hardy weeds infest it easily and you 're left fighting a losing battle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in a planned estate, fairly upmarket in appearance.
Most of the houses have "arid landscape" themed gardens, and all plants are selected for low water requirements.I can attest that, if done well, drought resistant garden design can look very, very nice.
It's also far easier and cheaper to maintain, as weeds don't grow as readily.
Our garden is made up with the hardiest plants from central Australia, thus we can literally starve weeds to death while the rest of the plants carry on fine.
Having big, lush, high water gardens means that hardy weeds infest it easily and you're left fighting a losing battle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346514</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who grew up in the country...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267636140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no, no. I moved from appalachia to norcal, and it's fucking insane. I can't have a clothes line (It's a fucking desert). I can't park my truck in the driveway. I can't have a TV antenna (but Dish is okay) While California has "the lowest property taxes in the country", if you buy anything built in the last decade, it has $500-$1000 a month Mello Roos tax, which is bond repayment. Hell, you have to get the governtment's permission to put a new engine in your car, unless it's a direct part number replacement. Yeah, so I can't put an identical 93' engine in my '94, though I can, legally, put a newer big block in, with worse emissions. I pay out the ass for water ($200/month in the summer, with just barely enough water to keep the grass yellow but not blowing away) yet the city waters all of the medians with big huge pretty plantings. This place is fucked up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no , no .
I moved from appalachia to norcal , and it 's fucking insane .
I ca n't have a clothes line ( It 's a fucking desert ) .
I ca n't park my truck in the driveway .
I ca n't have a TV antenna ( but Dish is okay ) While California has " the lowest property taxes in the country " , if you buy anything built in the last decade , it has $ 500- $ 1000 a month Mello Roos tax , which is bond repayment .
Hell , you have to get the governtment 's permission to put a new engine in your car , unless it 's a direct part number replacement .
Yeah , so I ca n't put an identical 93 ' engine in my '94 , though I can , legally , put a newer big block in , with worse emissions .
I pay out the ass for water ( $ 200/month in the summer , with just barely enough water to keep the grass yellow but not blowing away ) yet the city waters all of the medians with big huge pretty plantings .
This place is fucked up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no, no.
I moved from appalachia to norcal, and it's fucking insane.
I can't have a clothes line (It's a fucking desert).
I can't park my truck in the driveway.
I can't have a TV antenna (but Dish is okay) While California has "the lowest property taxes in the country", if you buy anything built in the last decade, it has $500-$1000 a month Mello Roos tax, which is bond repayment.
Hell, you have to get the governtment's permission to put a new engine in your car, unless it's a direct part number replacement.
Yeah, so I can't put an identical 93' engine in my '94, though I can, legally, put a newer big block in, with worse emissions.
I pay out the ass for water ($200/month in the summer, with just barely enough water to keep the grass yellow but not blowing away) yet the city waters all of the medians with big huge pretty plantings.
This place is fucked up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342302</id>
	<title>A PERMIT FOR WATER TANKS???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267610820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that for aesthetic reasons, to prevent the installation of colossal capacity tanks or just because its another way to gouge the householder?</p><p>In Afghanistan, that would probably come under the heading of corrupt government bribery.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that for aesthetic reasons , to prevent the installation of colossal capacity tanks or just because its another way to gouge the householder ? In Afghanistan , that would probably come under the heading of corrupt government bribery .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that for aesthetic reasons, to prevent the installation of colossal capacity tanks or just because its another way to gouge the householder?In Afghanistan, that would probably come under the heading of corrupt government bribery.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344536</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who grew up in the country...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267627380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't top what you said, but I will add that the water stories are what scares me; I am looking at over 5000 gallons just waiting to melt in the front yard.<br>In fact, there is so much around here, I have to buy a pontoon this year just to cross it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't top what you said , but I will add that the water stories are what scares me ; I am looking at over 5000 gallons just waiting to melt in the front yard.In fact , there is so much around here , I have to buy a pontoon this year just to cross it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't top what you said, but I will add that the water stories are what scares me; I am looking at over 5000 gallons just waiting to melt in the front yard.In fact, there is so much around here, I have to buy a pontoon this year just to cross it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341164</id>
	<title>property value of a lawn</title>
	<author>r00t</author>
	<datestamp>1267557600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But as a homeowner, it's what keeps the property value going.</p></div><p>Sure about that?</p><p>Lots of fancy places have forest. You can't even see the house from the street. You could hide almost anything: a large boat, a helicopter, a moat, a guard house, a private lake, a tour bus...</p><p>Lawn is for shitty places where developers crap out houses onto postage stamp sized lots. You get psychotic homeowner associations and chipboard walls. Lawn says "mass production" like nothing else.</p><p>Forest looks damn lovely.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But as a homeowner , it 's what keeps the property value going.Sure about that ? Lots of fancy places have forest .
You ca n't even see the house from the street .
You could hide almost anything : a large boat , a helicopter , a moat , a guard house , a private lake , a tour bus...Lawn is for shitty places where developers crap out houses onto postage stamp sized lots .
You get psychotic homeowner associations and chipboard walls .
Lawn says " mass production " like nothing else.Forest looks damn lovely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But as a homeowner, it's what keeps the property value going.Sure about that?Lots of fancy places have forest.
You can't even see the house from the street.
You could hide almost anything: a large boat, a helicopter, a moat, a guard house, a private lake, a tour bus...Lawn is for shitty places where developers crap out houses onto postage stamp sized lots.
You get psychotic homeowner associations and chipboard walls.
Lawn says "mass production" like nothing else.Forest looks damn lovely.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341542</id>
	<title>Re:Lone voice of reason...</title>
	<author>SheeEttin</author>
	<datestamp>1267647660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sooo... Basically, you value your personal property over the environment of the entire planet? How unselfish of you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sooo... Basically , you value your personal property over the environment of the entire planet ?
How unselfish of you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sooo... Basically, you value your personal property over the environment of the entire planet?
How unselfish of you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341028</id>
	<title>Couple could face a maximum penalty of six months</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267556460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...in jail for removing their grass.</p><p>Meanwhile, Bush walks free.  What a fucking nutcase country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...in jail for removing their grass.Meanwhile , Bush walks free .
What a fucking nutcase country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...in jail for removing their grass.Meanwhile, Bush walks free.
What a fucking nutcase country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345254</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>morgauxo</author>
	<datestamp>1267630860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's a long, well thought out reply for not reading the article.
<br> <br>
They don't have a dead, ugly lawn.  They removed the lawn and added plants that don't need a lot of water.  You know, the kind of stuff that naturally belongs in California.  The city IS coming after them for not making it a lush, green, expensive and environmentally negative artificial oasis.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a long , well thought out reply for not reading the article .
They do n't have a dead , ugly lawn .
They removed the lawn and added plants that do n't need a lot of water .
You know , the kind of stuff that naturally belongs in California .
The city IS coming after them for not making it a lush , green , expensive and environmentally negative artificial oasis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a long, well thought out reply for not reading the article.
They don't have a dead, ugly lawn.
They removed the lawn and added plants that don't need a lot of water.
You know, the kind of stuff that naturally belongs in California.
The city IS coming after them for not making it a lush, green, expensive and environmentally negative artificial oasis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343054</id>
	<title>Re:Lone voice of reason...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267617300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>No matter how noble or righteous you might think ripping up your lawn and replacing it with wood chips is, it is still violating the ordinance.</p></div></blockquote><p>Let me introduce you to the concept of "Limited Government".  There are hundreds of thousands of Federal laws - not just statutes, but via treaties, bureaucracies creating their own laws, what have you.  You are in violation of at least several right now, I guarantee it.  Everyone is.  Just because it's on the books doesn't mean it itself is legal or can be enforced.</p><p>A city's government doesn't own your property.  They should have very limited rights to tell you what to do with it, especially if it costs money, and one consideration is safety.  Beyond that, I look down at most laws.  Especially "property" value.  What is property worth when you can't do anything with it anymore except conforming to everyone else?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter how noble or righteous you might think ripping up your lawn and replacing it with wood chips is , it is still violating the ordinance.Let me introduce you to the concept of " Limited Government " .
There are hundreds of thousands of Federal laws - not just statutes , but via treaties , bureaucracies creating their own laws , what have you .
You are in violation of at least several right now , I guarantee it .
Everyone is .
Just because it 's on the books does n't mean it itself is legal or can be enforced.A city 's government does n't own your property .
They should have very limited rights to tell you what to do with it , especially if it costs money , and one consideration is safety .
Beyond that , I look down at most laws .
Especially " property " value .
What is property worth when you ca n't do anything with it anymore except conforming to everyone else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter how noble or righteous you might think ripping up your lawn and replacing it with wood chips is, it is still violating the ordinance.Let me introduce you to the concept of "Limited Government".
There are hundreds of thousands of Federal laws - not just statutes, but via treaties, bureaucracies creating their own laws, what have you.
You are in violation of at least several right now, I guarantee it.
Everyone is.
Just because it's on the books doesn't mean it itself is legal or can be enforced.A city's government doesn't own your property.
They should have very limited rights to tell you what to do with it, especially if it costs money, and one consideration is safety.
Beyond that, I look down at most laws.
Especially "property" value.
What is property worth when you can't do anything with it anymore except conforming to everyone else?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345500</id>
	<title>Conflicts of interest between state and county.</title>
	<author>TheHawke</author>
	<datestamp>1267631880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As one<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. poster has mentioned, they live in a arid, dry part of the state, where they have to pipe their water in over long distances. Voters and the state passed laws mandating water saving fixtures be installed in both new and existing structures.</p><p>Now we got this county quibbling with a homeowner who decided to do xeriscaping to both save money and resources.<br>There is no compliance issue here, this reeks of politics and someone trying to cover their a$$. If this does go to trial, it will set precedents, either way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As one / .
poster has mentioned , they live in a arid , dry part of the state , where they have to pipe their water in over long distances .
Voters and the state passed laws mandating water saving fixtures be installed in both new and existing structures.Now we got this county quibbling with a homeowner who decided to do xeriscaping to both save money and resources.There is no compliance issue here , this reeks of politics and someone trying to cover their a $ $ .
If this does go to trial , it will set precedents , either way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As one /.
poster has mentioned, they live in a arid, dry part of the state, where they have to pipe their water in over long distances.
Voters and the state passed laws mandating water saving fixtures be installed in both new and existing structures.Now we got this county quibbling with a homeowner who decided to do xeriscaping to both save money and resources.There is no compliance issue here, this reeks of politics and someone trying to cover their a$$.
If this does go to trial, it will set precedents, either way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341288</id>
	<title>Re:Idiots... the rest of the county is conserving</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267558980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's no rule against saving water.  There's a rule against making your lawn into an eyesore.  It affects peoples property values, not to mention pissing them off so that they pester the local government about you.</p><p>What fucking morons rated the parent post as "Informative" anyway?  Do you even know what that word means?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no rule against saving water .
There 's a rule against making your lawn into an eyesore .
It affects peoples property values , not to mention pissing them off so that they pester the local government about you.What fucking morons rated the parent post as " Informative " anyway ?
Do you even know what that word means ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no rule against saving water.
There's a rule against making your lawn into an eyesore.
It affects peoples property values, not to mention pissing them off so that they pester the local government about you.What fucking morons rated the parent post as "Informative" anyway?
Do you even know what that word means?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344216</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>temcat</author>
	<datestamp>1267625760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whatever the silly laws say, you should NOT be entitled to keeping or increasing value of your property. Others may not damage or steal your property, but the value of your property should be totally your problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever the silly laws say , you should NOT be entitled to keeping or increasing value of your property .
Others may not damage or steal your property , but the value of your property should be totally your problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever the silly laws say, you should NOT be entitled to keeping or increasing value of your property.
Others may not damage or steal your property, but the value of your property should be totally your problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346836</id>
	<title>Oh please.</title>
	<author>tthomas48</author>
	<datestamp>1267637460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't about an authoritarian state. The majority of your neighbors decided they like grass so the city enforces it. The proper way to fix this in a democracy is to start a movement to change the law to allow for drought tolerant lawns without grass. The incorrect way is to violate the law then bitch and moan about how unfair it is that this existing law is being applied to you.</p><p>I've actually done this exact thing with an HOA board in a subdivision. Grow up people. The government is pretty accurately reflecting your immature pettiness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't about an authoritarian state .
The majority of your neighbors decided they like grass so the city enforces it .
The proper way to fix this in a democracy is to start a movement to change the law to allow for drought tolerant lawns without grass .
The incorrect way is to violate the law then bitch and moan about how unfair it is that this existing law is being applied to you.I 've actually done this exact thing with an HOA board in a subdivision .
Grow up people .
The government is pretty accurately reflecting your immature pettiness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't about an authoritarian state.
The majority of your neighbors decided they like grass so the city enforces it.
The proper way to fix this in a democracy is to start a movement to change the law to allow for drought tolerant lawns without grass.
The incorrect way is to violate the law then bitch and moan about how unfair it is that this existing law is being applied to you.I've actually done this exact thing with an HOA board in a subdivision.
Grow up people.
The government is pretty accurately reflecting your immature pettiness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340920</id>
	<title>*Sigh*</title>
	<author>gaelfx</author>
	<datestamp>1267555680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Land of the free* prosecution.


*As in speech, not beer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Land of the free * prosecution .
* As in speech , not beer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Land of the free* prosecution.
*As in speech, not beer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342676</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267613760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They never will. If anything the entitlement culture is becoming more entrenched. Look at California. The entire culture here is entitlement. People want programs, but they don't want to pay for them, and it will only get worse, as the deficit and debt continue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They never will .
If anything the entitlement culture is becoming more entrenched .
Look at California .
The entire culture here is entitlement .
People want programs , but they do n't want to pay for them , and it will only get worse , as the deficit and debt continue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They never will.
If anything the entitlement culture is becoming more entrenched.
Look at California.
The entire culture here is entitlement.
People want programs, but they don't want to pay for them, and it will only get worse, as the deficit and debt continue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347458</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>BeanThere</author>
	<datestamp>1267639740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can your land i.e. title deed actually be taken away from you for non-payment of services, i.e. property taxes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can your land i.e .
title deed actually be taken away from you for non-payment of services , i.e .
property taxes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can your land i.e.
title deed actually be taken away from you for non-payment of services, i.e.
property taxes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342784</id>
	<title>Re:Revenue Streams</title>
	<author>blackchiney</author>
	<datestamp>1267614840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The town I used to live in when water metering was put in place the justification was they needed a metric to know how much to charge for treatment. Acquiring the water was fairly cheap, it's the effluent that cost money. So if you used 100m^3 of water than that is what they charged you for.

Previously, everyone used septic tanks. And the water was free. But environmental concerns eventually put them out of favor. Plus if you waste a lot of water it turned your property into swamp land.

Some people did have basins to catch rainwater but, I think, the impact on revenue was miniscule so the city didn't care.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The town I used to live in when water metering was put in place the justification was they needed a metric to know how much to charge for treatment .
Acquiring the water was fairly cheap , it 's the effluent that cost money .
So if you used 100m ^ 3 of water than that is what they charged you for .
Previously , everyone used septic tanks .
And the water was free .
But environmental concerns eventually put them out of favor .
Plus if you waste a lot of water it turned your property into swamp land .
Some people did have basins to catch rainwater but , I think , the impact on revenue was miniscule so the city did n't care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The town I used to live in when water metering was put in place the justification was they needed a metric to know how much to charge for treatment.
Acquiring the water was fairly cheap, it's the effluent that cost money.
So if you used 100m^3 of water than that is what they charged you for.
Previously, everyone used septic tanks.
And the water was free.
But environmental concerns eventually put them out of favor.
Plus if you waste a lot of water it turned your property into swamp land.
Some people did have basins to catch rainwater but, I think, the impact on revenue was miniscule so the city didn't care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347444</id>
	<title>Re:No one is wrong here...</title>
	<author>kimgkimg</author>
	<datestamp>1267639680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I guess artificial turf isn't an option...</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I guess artificial turf is n't an option.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I guess artificial turf isn't an option...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944</id>
	<title>No one is wrong here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267555800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... the law requires 40\% live ground cover, so they should be given a citation.</p><p>They think that law is unjust, so they are doing their duty by not following it.</p><p>The correct outcome is for the law to be changed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... the law requires 40 \ % live ground cover , so they should be given a citation.They think that law is unjust , so they are doing their duty by not following it.The correct outcome is for the law to be changed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the law requires 40\% live ground cover, so they should be given a citation.They think that law is unjust, so they are doing their duty by not following it.The correct outcome is for the law to be changed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342584</id>
	<title>Re:Lone voice of reason...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267612980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The entire planet is not his property...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The entire planet is not his property.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entire planet is not his property...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341148</id>
	<title>There is Orange and there is Orange County</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267557480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/a-clockwork-orange/quan-angelina-ha-orange-lawn/" title="ocweekly.com" rel="nofollow">The Has live in both</a> [ocweekly.com]:</p><p>[Excerpt]</p><p><i>"Quan and Angelina Ha are good eggs, they understand Southern California is in the clutches of a nasty drought and they want to leave the planet a better place for their newborn. But the couple is going to Orange County Superior Court today to fight a lawsuit Orange, the city they reside in, has filed against them. Their heinous crime: ripping out their water-sucking front lawn."</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Has live in both [ ocweekly.com ] : [ Excerpt ] " Quan and Angelina Ha are good eggs , they understand Southern California is in the clutches of a nasty drought and they want to leave the planet a better place for their newborn .
But the couple is going to Orange County Superior Court today to fight a lawsuit Orange , the city they reside in , has filed against them .
Their heinous crime : ripping out their water-sucking front lawn .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Has live in both [ocweekly.com]:[Excerpt]"Quan and Angelina Ha are good eggs, they understand Southern California is in the clutches of a nasty drought and they want to leave the planet a better place for their newborn.
But the couple is going to Orange County Superior Court today to fight a lawsuit Orange, the city they reside in, has filed against them.
Their heinous crime: ripping out their water-sucking front lawn.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341180</id>
	<title>What's truly illegal is common sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267557780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should be given tax breaks for removing their lawns while people with lawns should be charged extra to pay for the tax breaks. Once the system balances out cancel the tax breaks and ban new lawns from being added. Need more people to remove lawns? Raise residential water prices. People that want to live in the desert shouldn't be allowed to have lawns. Also new houses should never be allowed to have lawns in desert areas. Why should everyone face rationing because of lawns??? Want to hear the worst offenders? Golf Courses. They use a massive percentage of the available water and in some areas use more than home owners. You'll never ban golf courses though, too many of the rich and powerful play. You'll see people going without showers before they ban golf courses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should be given tax breaks for removing their lawns while people with lawns should be charged extra to pay for the tax breaks .
Once the system balances out cancel the tax breaks and ban new lawns from being added .
Need more people to remove lawns ?
Raise residential water prices .
People that want to live in the desert should n't be allowed to have lawns .
Also new houses should never be allowed to have lawns in desert areas .
Why should everyone face rationing because of lawns ? ? ?
Want to hear the worst offenders ?
Golf Courses .
They use a massive percentage of the available water and in some areas use more than home owners .
You 'll never ban golf courses though , too many of the rich and powerful play .
You 'll see people going without showers before they ban golf courses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should be given tax breaks for removing their lawns while people with lawns should be charged extra to pay for the tax breaks.
Once the system balances out cancel the tax breaks and ban new lawns from being added.
Need more people to remove lawns?
Raise residential water prices.
People that want to live in the desert shouldn't be allowed to have lawns.
Also new houses should never be allowed to have lawns in desert areas.
Why should everyone face rationing because of lawns???
Want to hear the worst offenders?
Golf Courses.
They use a massive percentage of the available water and in some areas use more than home owners.
You'll never ban golf courses though, too many of the rich and powerful play.
You'll see people going without showers before they ban golf courses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341838</id>
	<title>Re:Lone voice of reason...</title>
	<author>jjohnson</author>
	<datestamp>1267649940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But what if the Has did it nicely?  It's easy to have a nicely landscaped yard with wood chips, desert plants, etc.  That's the problem with an ordinance that just says "40\%+ grass".  Your issue isn't with the wood chips, it's with the aesthetic quality of the neighbour's yard and its effect on your property value.  If they violate the ordinance without lowering your property value, then the ordinance is an ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But what if the Has did it nicely ?
It 's easy to have a nicely landscaped yard with wood chips , desert plants , etc .
That 's the problem with an ordinance that just says " 40 \ % + grass " .
Your issue is n't with the wood chips , it 's with the aesthetic quality of the neighbour 's yard and its effect on your property value .
If they violate the ordinance without lowering your property value , then the ordinance is an ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what if the Has did it nicely?
It's easy to have a nicely landscaped yard with wood chips, desert plants, etc.
That's the problem with an ordinance that just says "40\%+ grass".
Your issue isn't with the wood chips, it's with the aesthetic quality of the neighbour's yard and its effect on your property value.
If they violate the ordinance without lowering your property value, then the ordinance is an ass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346542</id>
	<title>Re:I lived there for better than a dozen years...</title>
	<author>tmosley</author>
	<datestamp>1267636260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Better watch out, because you're next.<br> <br>

You see, they have infiltrated the Federal Government.  The same crazies (yes, just like in the movie) just happened to get control of places like California and Detroit first.  This is not an R or a D problem.  Both parties are infected.  They talk freedom and civil liberties while they are in the minority, but as soon as they get into power, they start stripping them away at a faster and faster pace, until the whole damn world either cuts them loose, or the whole world collapses back into the Dark Ages.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Better watch out , because you 're next .
You see , they have infiltrated the Federal Government .
The same crazies ( yes , just like in the movie ) just happened to get control of places like California and Detroit first .
This is not an R or a D problem .
Both parties are infected .
They talk freedom and civil liberties while they are in the minority , but as soon as they get into power , they start stripping them away at a faster and faster pace , until the whole damn world either cuts them loose , or the whole world collapses back into the Dark Ages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better watch out, because you're next.
You see, they have infiltrated the Federal Government.
The same crazies (yes, just like in the movie) just happened to get control of places like California and Detroit first.
This is not an R or a D problem.
Both parties are infected.
They talk freedom and civil liberties while they are in the minority, but as soon as they get into power, they start stripping them away at a faster and faster pace, until the whole damn world either cuts them loose, or the whole world collapses back into the Dark Ages.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345614</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1267632240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But as a homeowner, it's what keeps the property value going. I already have problems with the neighbors not paying their water bill (shared pipe mess, etc), and the association can't do much else other than give warnings that if they don't pay, then EVERYONE will lose water.</p></div><p>What kind of messed up structure did you let yourself in for?  Shouldn't that have been researched before buying? Why would you make any kind of purchase where your own rights are dictated by the behavior of others?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But as a homeowner , it 's what keeps the property value going .
I already have problems with the neighbors not paying their water bill ( shared pipe mess , etc ) , and the association ca n't do much else other than give warnings that if they do n't pay , then EVERYONE will lose water.What kind of messed up structure did you let yourself in for ?
Should n't that have been researched before buying ?
Why would you make any kind of purchase where your own rights are dictated by the behavior of others ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But as a homeowner, it's what keeps the property value going.
I already have problems with the neighbors not paying their water bill (shared pipe mess, etc), and the association can't do much else other than give warnings that if they don't pay, then EVERYONE will lose water.What kind of messed up structure did you let yourself in for?
Shouldn't that have been researched before buying?
Why would you make any kind of purchase where your own rights are dictated by the behavior of others?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341056</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing Summary</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1267556700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue is in the article - they keep mixing city and county laws and officials as well. If I were a betting man, I'd say that this is the city of Irvine in Orange County. It's the only place in the area that I know that looks like it's located in Oregon, rather than a semi-arid desert. Not to mention that it also has insane laws designed to keep out low-earning immigrants and single people. Forcing people to have a water-guzzling lawn sounds about right for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue is in the article - they keep mixing city and county laws and officials as well .
If I were a betting man , I 'd say that this is the city of Irvine in Orange County .
It 's the only place in the area that I know that looks like it 's located in Oregon , rather than a semi-arid desert .
Not to mention that it also has insane laws designed to keep out low-earning immigrants and single people .
Forcing people to have a water-guzzling lawn sounds about right for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue is in the article - they keep mixing city and county laws and officials as well.
If I were a betting man, I'd say that this is the city of Irvine in Orange County.
It's the only place in the area that I know that looks like it's located in Oregon, rather than a semi-arid desert.
Not to mention that it also has insane laws designed to keep out low-earning immigrants and single people.
Forcing people to have a water-guzzling lawn sounds about right for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341030</id>
	<title>Anther case of Laws not keeping up with Reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267556520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Start a petition and maybe initiate some good, clear citizen-initiated legislation to help the Law to keep up.</p><p>Simple &amp; sweet.  Of course, it'll take some time &amp; $$$.</p><p>Is there any recourse to a State Ombudsman?</p><p>or an environmental agency, to block or, better, undo the nonsense, just exposed?</p><p>All this needs is some Practical Wisdom, on the part of the misdirected officials<br>(or, better, sackings of the same, eg, by wiser managers).</p><p>PS Does anybody know of some green microplants that grow well on wood chips, without destroying it? It would have to absorb its life-supporting water from the air &amp; keep it inside, to preclude loss by evaporation, etc. It would also have to attract its own nutrients (since its' not allow to destroy the wood chips. Or maybe it could drop roots &amp; "mine" the soil below for what it needs.</p><p>Is there a Genetic Engineer in the audience? Above are the spec's, we need it in 10 working days.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Start a petition and maybe initiate some good , clear citizen-initiated legislation to help the Law to keep up.Simple &amp; sweet .
Of course , it 'll take some time &amp; $ $ $ .Is there any recourse to a State Ombudsman ? or an environmental agency , to block or , better , undo the nonsense , just exposed ? All this needs is some Practical Wisdom , on the part of the misdirected officials ( or , better , sackings of the same , eg , by wiser managers ) .PS Does anybody know of some green microplants that grow well on wood chips , without destroying it ?
It would have to absorb its life-supporting water from the air &amp; keep it inside , to preclude loss by evaporation , etc .
It would also have to attract its own nutrients ( since its ' not allow to destroy the wood chips .
Or maybe it could drop roots &amp; " mine " the soil below for what it needs.Is there a Genetic Engineer in the audience ?
Above are the spec 's , we need it in 10 working days .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Start a petition and maybe initiate some good, clear citizen-initiated legislation to help the Law to keep up.Simple &amp; sweet.
Of course, it'll take some time &amp; $$$.Is there any recourse to a State Ombudsman?or an environmental agency, to block or, better, undo the nonsense, just exposed?All this needs is some Practical Wisdom, on the part of the misdirected officials(or, better, sackings of the same, eg, by wiser managers).PS Does anybody know of some green microplants that grow well on wood chips, without destroying it?
It would have to absorb its life-supporting water from the air &amp; keep it inside, to preclude loss by evaporation, etc.
It would also have to attract its own nutrients (since its' not allow to destroy the wood chips.
Or maybe it could drop roots &amp; "mine" the soil below for what it needs.Is there a Genetic Engineer in the audience?
Above are the spec's, we need it in 10 working days.
;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341492</id>
	<title>And it isn't even a large lawn</title>
	<author>bigsexyjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1267647180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I read that they were using 299,221 gallons of water, I assumed that they lived on some giant estate.  But if you look at the picture of their home, it is a smallish, modest house.  Sort of a lot of lawn, but not really.<p>
After reading this, it is clear that no one in that area should have a lawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I read that they were using 299,221 gallons of water , I assumed that they lived on some giant estate .
But if you look at the picture of their home , it is a smallish , modest house .
Sort of a lot of lawn , but not really .
After reading this , it is clear that no one in that area should have a lawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I read that they were using 299,221 gallons of water, I assumed that they lived on some giant estate.
But if you look at the picture of their home, it is a smallish, modest house.
Sort of a lot of lawn, but not really.
After reading this, it is clear that no one in that area should have a lawn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345174</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267630440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say it's in their best self-interest to be a responsible home owner to maintain a good property value, but the key here in their situation is that they live in a community where the neighbors' house unfortunately affect everyone else's property value simply because of proximity. However, I wouldn't say it's their obligation (if you don't do this, pay $XXX), because that indeed would be a draconian govt., but I don't think this is a case where the govt. decided on this ordinance out of the blue, but rather its citizens chose it. There are cities, or maybe even states out there that allows the toy soldier lawns, but they're usually out in the boonies. In more populated places with somewhat close communities (the suburbs), you'll find more  of these restrictive "draconian" homeowner ordinances, which were chosen and voted by its citizens. And if I understand correctly, what you're saying, "it's my property, I should be able to do whatever I want as long as it's not dangerous or hazardous," but the closer you live to people, i.e. in a society, the more "diluted" your rights will be as your neighboring homeowners will have ideas on how to keep up property value. Unless of course, you have acres of lawn separating you and your neighbors, or a lawn so large your house is not publicly visible (should you paint it hot pink) in which case they won't see your property and care, because it won't affect their property value.</p><p>In a broader sense of speaking, if you choose to live among people, then you'll have to abide to follow the rules chosen by the people. Whether it's HOA or city ordinances, that was chosen by the local people. If you don't like it, then live away from people towards isolation where I bet you'll have more rights - even to paint your house to whatever color you like.</p><p>As far as I know, my city has no ordinance in regards to lawn on private property (haven't been cited), but if everyone's lawn got out of hand, someone will probably bring it up on city council meetings. If you and a few other people don't like the mandatory grass cutting, ban of colors, or ANY restrictive and "draconian" law then please bring it up to city council. Local government has THE most effect on your immediate life. You'll also find silly ordinances like, 'commercial trucks are not allowed to park in a residential area for more than 48 hrs' and they also define the truck as being a 'vehicle with more than 6 wheels' - and it's there because probably some jerk with a big truck kept blocking the road driveways because it's cheaper than renting a commercial truck parking space in an industrial zoned area - even though those roads on residential zone are public space paved with taxpayer's money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say it 's in their best self-interest to be a responsible home owner to maintain a good property value , but the key here in their situation is that they live in a community where the neighbors ' house unfortunately affect everyone else 's property value simply because of proximity .
However , I would n't say it 's their obligation ( if you do n't do this , pay $ XXX ) , because that indeed would be a draconian govt. , but I do n't think this is a case where the govt .
decided on this ordinance out of the blue , but rather its citizens chose it .
There are cities , or maybe even states out there that allows the toy soldier lawns , but they 're usually out in the boonies .
In more populated places with somewhat close communities ( the suburbs ) , you 'll find more of these restrictive " draconian " homeowner ordinances , which were chosen and voted by its citizens .
And if I understand correctly , what you 're saying , " it 's my property , I should be able to do whatever I want as long as it 's not dangerous or hazardous , " but the closer you live to people , i.e .
in a society , the more " diluted " your rights will be as your neighboring homeowners will have ideas on how to keep up property value .
Unless of course , you have acres of lawn separating you and your neighbors , or a lawn so large your house is not publicly visible ( should you paint it hot pink ) in which case they wo n't see your property and care , because it wo n't affect their property value.In a broader sense of speaking , if you choose to live among people , then you 'll have to abide to follow the rules chosen by the people .
Whether it 's HOA or city ordinances , that was chosen by the local people .
If you do n't like it , then live away from people towards isolation where I bet you 'll have more rights - even to paint your house to whatever color you like.As far as I know , my city has no ordinance in regards to lawn on private property ( have n't been cited ) , but if everyone 's lawn got out of hand , someone will probably bring it up on city council meetings .
If you and a few other people do n't like the mandatory grass cutting , ban of colors , or ANY restrictive and " draconian " law then please bring it up to city council .
Local government has THE most effect on your immediate life .
You 'll also find silly ordinances like , 'commercial trucks are not allowed to park in a residential area for more than 48 hrs ' and they also define the truck as being a 'vehicle with more than 6 wheels ' - and it 's there because probably some jerk with a big truck kept blocking the road driveways because it 's cheaper than renting a commercial truck parking space in an industrial zoned area - even though those roads on residential zone are public space paved with taxpayer 's money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say it's in their best self-interest to be a responsible home owner to maintain a good property value, but the key here in their situation is that they live in a community where the neighbors' house unfortunately affect everyone else's property value simply because of proximity.
However, I wouldn't say it's their obligation (if you don't do this, pay $XXX), because that indeed would be a draconian govt., but I don't think this is a case where the govt.
decided on this ordinance out of the blue, but rather its citizens chose it.
There are cities, or maybe even states out there that allows the toy soldier lawns, but they're usually out in the boonies.
In more populated places with somewhat close communities (the suburbs), you'll find more  of these restrictive "draconian" homeowner ordinances, which were chosen and voted by its citizens.
And if I understand correctly, what you're saying, "it's my property, I should be able to do whatever I want as long as it's not dangerous or hazardous," but the closer you live to people, i.e.
in a society, the more "diluted" your rights will be as your neighboring homeowners will have ideas on how to keep up property value.
Unless of course, you have acres of lawn separating you and your neighbors, or a lawn so large your house is not publicly visible (should you paint it hot pink) in which case they won't see your property and care, because it won't affect their property value.In a broader sense of speaking, if you choose to live among people, then you'll have to abide to follow the rules chosen by the people.
Whether it's HOA or city ordinances, that was chosen by the local people.
If you don't like it, then live away from people towards isolation where I bet you'll have more rights - even to paint your house to whatever color you like.As far as I know, my city has no ordinance in regards to lawn on private property (haven't been cited), but if everyone's lawn got out of hand, someone will probably bring it up on city council meetings.
If you and a few other people don't like the mandatory grass cutting, ban of colors, or ANY restrictive and "draconian" law then please bring it up to city council.
Local government has THE most effect on your immediate life.
You'll also find silly ordinances like, 'commercial trucks are not allowed to park in a residential area for more than 48 hrs' and they also define the truck as being a 'vehicle with more than 6 wheels' - and it's there because probably some jerk with a big truck kept blocking the road driveways because it's cheaper than renting a commercial truck parking space in an industrial zoned area - even though those roads on residential zone are public space paved with taxpayer's money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345638</id>
	<title>Re:Lone voice of reason...</title>
	<author>cynyr</author>
	<datestamp>1267632300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The law was written to prevent dirt or un maintained yards, any yard that shows an active owner shouldn't lower property values, and in this day and age, you would think being able to cite the eco-friendliness of your neighbors lawn would be a selling point. So we sort of agree. There is no reason that grass and this shouldn't both be viable options. The only property value that this lowers is the homeowner, and then only for some(most?) buyers. It's not like the fact that they clearly have thought out landscaping in their yard, and it is being maintained, whats the difference between this and a yard full of lilacs(except i'm quite allergic to lilacs)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The law was written to prevent dirt or un maintained yards , any yard that shows an active owner should n't lower property values , and in this day and age , you would think being able to cite the eco-friendliness of your neighbors lawn would be a selling point .
So we sort of agree .
There is no reason that grass and this should n't both be viable options .
The only property value that this lowers is the homeowner , and then only for some ( most ?
) buyers .
It 's not like the fact that they clearly have thought out landscaping in their yard , and it is being maintained , whats the difference between this and a yard full of lilacs ( except i 'm quite allergic to lilacs ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The law was written to prevent dirt or un maintained yards, any yard that shows an active owner shouldn't lower property values, and in this day and age, you would think being able to cite the eco-friendliness of your neighbors lawn would be a selling point.
So we sort of agree.
There is no reason that grass and this shouldn't both be viable options.
The only property value that this lowers is the homeowner, and then only for some(most?
) buyers.
It's not like the fact that they clearly have thought out landscaping in their yard, and it is being maintained, whats the difference between this and a yard full of lilacs(except i'm quite allergic to lilacs)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31350054</id>
	<title>Re:No one is wrong here...</title>
	<author>shermo</author>
	<datestamp>1267609020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean, would you prefer all the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... laws still on the books in US to also be enforced, just because they happen to be there?</p></div><p>Why would you have a law if it wasn't meant to be enforced?</p><p>I'd go so far as to say that discretion has no place in law enforcement. It certainly has its place in sentencing, and someone needs to be able to pass judgement on what the law actually means (judges). However, law enforcement shouldn't have the ability to look the other way when a law is being broken. You broke the law, you get charged, the end.</p><p>Ah, I can only dream.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , would you prefer all the ... laws still on the books in US to also be enforced , just because they happen to be there ? Why would you have a law if it was n't meant to be enforced ? I 'd go so far as to say that discretion has no place in law enforcement .
It certainly has its place in sentencing , and someone needs to be able to pass judgement on what the law actually means ( judges ) .
However , law enforcement should n't have the ability to look the other way when a law is being broken .
You broke the law , you get charged , the end.Ah , I can only dream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, would you prefer all the ... laws still on the books in US to also be enforced, just because they happen to be there?Why would you have a law if it wasn't meant to be enforced?I'd go so far as to say that discretion has no place in law enforcement.
It certainly has its place in sentencing, and someone needs to be able to pass judgement on what the law actually means (judges).
However, law enforcement shouldn't have the ability to look the other way when a law is being broken.
You broke the law, you get charged, the end.Ah, I can only dream.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874</id>
	<title>Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1267555380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why government should have no powers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why government should have no powers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why government should have no powers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345464</id>
	<title>Not in my backyard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267631700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that the people should be able to put down woodchips if they want. They are not harming the environment at all. In fact, considering all the water problems out in California, you think that these types of steps would be encouraged. Instead, they are being sued over it. I think it is sad. As for property value, I think it is horrible that everyone is so concerned about it. We can not even put up a clothesline in our backyard because of these types of rules.  But the same people who fight to prevent these things "in the name of property value" also claim to be environmentally friendly. It is the classic "not in my backyard" argument.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that the people should be able to put down woodchips if they want .
They are not harming the environment at all .
In fact , considering all the water problems out in California , you think that these types of steps would be encouraged .
Instead , they are being sued over it .
I think it is sad .
As for property value , I think it is horrible that everyone is so concerned about it .
We can not even put up a clothesline in our backyard because of these types of rules .
But the same people who fight to prevent these things " in the name of property value " also claim to be environmentally friendly .
It is the classic " not in my backyard " argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that the people should be able to put down woodchips if they want.
They are not harming the environment at all.
In fact, considering all the water problems out in California, you think that these types of steps would be encouraged.
Instead, they are being sued over it.
I think it is sad.
As for property value, I think it is horrible that everyone is so concerned about it.
We can not even put up a clothesline in our backyard because of these types of rules.
But the same people who fight to prevent these things "in the name of property value" also claim to be environmentally friendly.
It is the classic "not in my backyard" argument.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341146</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>pthisis</author>
	<datestamp>1267557480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is it your neighbor's responsibility to use their property in a way they dislike in order to bolster your property values?</p><p>I live in Virginia now, and this nonsense goes on not only in HOAs but even with city ordinances--mandating grass cutting, forbidding painting your house certain colors, etc.  I just don't get it--in Maine, if you wanted a hot pink house with lines of toy soldiers and an above ground pool on your front lawn, that was your own business.  It's your own property, and you have a right to use it how you want within the bounds of safety and environmental concerns.</p><p>Now, if it's a safety issue that's another thing.  But the state's interest in defending property should be first and foremost to defend the right of a property's owner to use it as they see fit; if you want to have crazy aesthetic restrictions then you can move into an area with a draconian HOA.</p><p>Your water pipe issue is completely different, and I sympathize greatly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it your neighbor 's responsibility to use their property in a way they dislike in order to bolster your property values ? I live in Virginia now , and this nonsense goes on not only in HOAs but even with city ordinances--mandating grass cutting , forbidding painting your house certain colors , etc .
I just do n't get it--in Maine , if you wanted a hot pink house with lines of toy soldiers and an above ground pool on your front lawn , that was your own business .
It 's your own property , and you have a right to use it how you want within the bounds of safety and environmental concerns.Now , if it 's a safety issue that 's another thing .
But the state 's interest in defending property should be first and foremost to defend the right of a property 's owner to use it as they see fit ; if you want to have crazy aesthetic restrictions then you can move into an area with a draconian HOA.Your water pipe issue is completely different , and I sympathize greatly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it your neighbor's responsibility to use their property in a way they dislike in order to bolster your property values?I live in Virginia now, and this nonsense goes on not only in HOAs but even with city ordinances--mandating grass cutting, forbidding painting your house certain colors, etc.
I just don't get it--in Maine, if you wanted a hot pink house with lines of toy soldiers and an above ground pool on your front lawn, that was your own business.
It's your own property, and you have a right to use it how you want within the bounds of safety and environmental concerns.Now, if it's a safety issue that's another thing.
But the state's interest in defending property should be first and foremost to defend the right of a property's owner to use it as they see fit; if you want to have crazy aesthetic restrictions then you can move into an area with a draconian HOA.Your water pipe issue is completely different, and I sympathize greatly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31355540</id>
	<title>Only in America...</title>
	<author>dpastern</author>
	<datestamp>1267693560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You gotta be fucking kidding me, right?  You *own* the land, you should be able to do whatever the freaking hell you want with it!</p><p>ffs governments have gotten out of hand.</p><p>Dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You got ta be fucking kidding me , right ?
You * own * the land , you should be able to do whatever the freaking hell you want with it ! ffs governments have gotten out of hand.Dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You gotta be fucking kidding me, right?
You *own* the land, you should be able to do whatever the freaking hell you want with it!ffs governments have gotten out of hand.Dave</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343764</id>
	<title>Re:Lone voice of reason...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267622940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the planet will be fine. The people living the desert in this particular part of the world may be fucked, but not the planet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the planet will be fine .
The people living the desert in this particular part of the world may be fucked , but not the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the planet will be fine.
The people living the desert in this particular part of the world may be fucked, but not the planet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347068</id>
	<title>Re:No one is wrong here...</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1267638360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the correct outcome is for the law to be challenged. There is no guarantee that they will win, and depending on many factors, it may not even be the "correct" thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the correct outcome is for the law to be challenged .
There is no guarantee that they will win , and depending on many factors , it may not even be the " correct " thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the correct outcome is for the law to be challenged.
There is no guarantee that they will win, and depending on many factors, it may not even be the "correct" thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345370</id>
	<title>Get rid of the "yard"</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1267631280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depending how bit it is, if it is covered in "woodchips" you likely are not using it other than to look at it.</p><p>If it isn't huge, get rid of it. Replace it with a large Deck or just pave over it and make it a parking lot...</p><p>If it isn't a "yard" anymore, it isn't subject to 40\% plant coverage.</p><p>Personally I am in horror of the amount of water being used for such a trivial purpose. What a waste of resources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depending how bit it is , if it is covered in " woodchips " you likely are not using it other than to look at it.If it is n't huge , get rid of it .
Replace it with a large Deck or just pave over it and make it a parking lot...If it is n't a " yard " anymore , it is n't subject to 40 \ % plant coverage.Personally I am in horror of the amount of water being used for such a trivial purpose .
What a waste of resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depending how bit it is, if it is covered in "woodchips" you likely are not using it other than to look at it.If it isn't huge, get rid of it.
Replace it with a large Deck or just pave over it and make it a parking lot...If it isn't a "yard" anymore, it isn't subject to 40\% plant coverage.Personally I am in horror of the amount of water being used for such a trivial purpose.
What a waste of resources.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345404</id>
	<title>Memes and Misquotes</title>
	<author>ArundelCastle</author>
	<datestamp>1267631460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This summary offers one of the best out of context quotes I've ever seen on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.<br>"It's just funny...", said Ha.</p><p>I would find it funny to hear whose money he thinks the city *should* be prosecuting them with.</p><p>First they came "for the environment", and I did not speak out&mdash;because I like being indoors;<br>Then they came "for the children", and I did not speak out&mdash;because I had no children;<br>Then they came "for my safety", and I did not speak out&mdash;because I felt quite safe at home;<br>Then they came for my lawn&mdash;and there was nowhere left for me to speak out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This summary offers one of the best out of context quotes I 've ever seen on / .
" It 's just funny... " , said Ha.I would find it funny to hear whose money he thinks the city * should * be prosecuting them with.First they came " for the environment " , and I did not speak out    because I like being indoors ; Then they came " for the children " , and I did not speak out    because I had no children ; Then they came " for my safety " , and I did not speak out    because I felt quite safe at home ; Then they came for my lawn    and there was nowhere left for me to speak out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This summary offers one of the best out of context quotes I've ever seen on /.
"It's just funny...", said Ha.I would find it funny to hear whose money he thinks the city *should* be prosecuting them with.First they came "for the environment", and I did not speak out—because I like being indoors;Then they came "for the children", and I did not speak out—because I had no children;Then they came "for my safety", and I did not speak out—because I felt quite safe at home;Then they came for my lawn—and there was nowhere left for me to speak out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345394</id>
	<title>Welcome to USA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267631400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>- The city tells you how to maintain your house (they shouldn't as long as it's not a safety hazard for anyone).<br>- The govt mandates the TV stations on what kind of signals they need to broadcast in (they shouldn't unless it's a safety hazard).<br>- Omeprazole 20mg is available without prescription but Omeprazole 40mg requires a prescription.<br>- You can legally bribe politicians as long as you call it lobbying (It's bribing &amp; corruption only if it happens in third world countries).<br>- Microsoft has proposed a tax to clean virus infected Microsoft Operating Systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>- The city tells you how to maintain your house ( they should n't as long as it 's not a safety hazard for anyone ) .- The govt mandates the TV stations on what kind of signals they need to broadcast in ( they should n't unless it 's a safety hazard ) .- Omeprazole 20mg is available without prescription but Omeprazole 40mg requires a prescription.- You can legally bribe politicians as long as you call it lobbying ( It 's bribing &amp; corruption only if it happens in third world countries ) .- Microsoft has proposed a tax to clean virus infected Microsoft Operating Systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- The city tells you how to maintain your house (they shouldn't as long as it's not a safety hazard for anyone).- The govt mandates the TV stations on what kind of signals they need to broadcast in (they shouldn't unless it's a safety hazard).- Omeprazole 20mg is available without prescription but Omeprazole 40mg requires a prescription.- You can legally bribe politicians as long as you call it lobbying (It's bribing &amp; corruption only if it happens in third world countries).- Microsoft has proposed a tax to clean virus infected Microsoft Operating Systems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344852</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>johnlcallaway</author>
	<datestamp>1267629000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If a group of people agree to certain rules, then it is their responsibility. It's called 'a society'. All they have to do to comply is plant some more low-water usage plants. It seems the ordinance is very clear, it doesn't mention anything about fences. Agave and prickly pear are downright cheap, and they tend to grow 'like weeds' with very little water. Texas Sage can be used to cover larger areas and also uses very little water. I live in Mesa, AZ and the city provided a list of low-water plants for residents that would grow well.
<br> <br>
It's unfortunate that other people want these types of rules, but the super-majority rules, and sometimes a simple-majority. I lived in Maine for 20 years, and there are places that have similar rules to Orange County. Usually put in place by transplants and 'from-away' types from Mass. who find the color choices by the French-Canadians who have lived their all of their life an eyesore. Yep<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. it's unfair. To the 10\% it affects.
<br> <br>
Don't like the laws<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. start work to change them.  Until then, either comply or accept the consequences.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a group of people agree to certain rules , then it is their responsibility .
It 's called 'a society' .
All they have to do to comply is plant some more low-water usage plants .
It seems the ordinance is very clear , it does n't mention anything about fences .
Agave and prickly pear are downright cheap , and they tend to grow 'like weeds ' with very little water .
Texas Sage can be used to cover larger areas and also uses very little water .
I live in Mesa , AZ and the city provided a list of low-water plants for residents that would grow well .
It 's unfortunate that other people want these types of rules , but the super-majority rules , and sometimes a simple-majority .
I lived in Maine for 20 years , and there are places that have similar rules to Orange County .
Usually put in place by transplants and 'from-away ' types from Mass .
who find the color choices by the French-Canadians who have lived their all of their life an eyesore .
Yep .. it 's unfair .
To the 10 \ % it affects .
Do n't like the laws .. start work to change them .
Until then , either comply or accept the consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a group of people agree to certain rules, then it is their responsibility.
It's called 'a society'.
All they have to do to comply is plant some more low-water usage plants.
It seems the ordinance is very clear, it doesn't mention anything about fences.
Agave and prickly pear are downright cheap, and they tend to grow 'like weeds' with very little water.
Texas Sage can be used to cover larger areas and also uses very little water.
I live in Mesa, AZ and the city provided a list of low-water plants for residents that would grow well.
It's unfortunate that other people want these types of rules, but the super-majority rules, and sometimes a simple-majority.
I lived in Maine for 20 years, and there are places that have similar rules to Orange County.
Usually put in place by transplants and 'from-away' types from Mass.
who find the color choices by the French-Canadians who have lived their all of their life an eyesore.
Yep .. it's unfair.
To the 10\% it affects.
Don't like the laws .. start work to change them.
Until then, either comply or accept the consequences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341256</id>
	<title>Re:Fire hazard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267558620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, they live in the desert, so what would happen to the local ecosystem if everyone did this?  No grass within 200 miles, just dry woodchips and dirt.  Can't imagine that would be a pleasant enviroment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , they live in the desert , so what would happen to the local ecosystem if everyone did this ?
No grass within 200 miles , just dry woodchips and dirt .
Ca n't imagine that would be a pleasant enviroment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, they live in the desert, so what would happen to the local ecosystem if everyone did this?
No grass within 200 miles, just dry woodchips and dirt.
Can't imagine that would be a pleasant enviroment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341364</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>bhagwad</author>
	<datestamp>1267559700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps I'm not understanding something here, but why should your neighbor care about your home's value? Of course, in the case of a shared resource like a water pipe, it's a different matter but if it's my house and I want to fill my front yard with grey paint, why should anyone object.

The whole "it's not aesthetic" argument is similar to the Taliban preventing women from wearing jeans because they don't like to see it. So where does it stop?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps I 'm not understanding something here , but why should your neighbor care about your home 's value ?
Of course , in the case of a shared resource like a water pipe , it 's a different matter but if it 's my house and I want to fill my front yard with grey paint , why should anyone object .
The whole " it 's not aesthetic " argument is similar to the Taliban preventing women from wearing jeans because they do n't like to see it .
So where does it stop ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps I'm not understanding something here, but why should your neighbor care about your home's value?
Of course, in the case of a shared resource like a water pipe, it's a different matter but if it's my house and I want to fill my front yard with grey paint, why should anyone object.
The whole "it's not aesthetic" argument is similar to the Taliban preventing women from wearing jeans because they don't like to see it.
So where does it stop?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345792</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267632900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are plenty of areas in VA without any of these restrictions.  It's up to you to pick somewhere to live that meets your expectation to live in a pink toy house.  I'll give you a hint, you might want to rethink trying to do that in the suburbs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are plenty of areas in VA without any of these restrictions .
It 's up to you to pick somewhere to live that meets your expectation to live in a pink toy house .
I 'll give you a hint , you might want to rethink trying to do that in the suburbs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are plenty of areas in VA without any of these restrictions.
It's up to you to pick somewhere to live that meets your expectation to live in a pink toy house.
I'll give you a hint, you might want to rethink trying to do that in the suburbs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388</id>
	<title>Lone voice of reason...</title>
	<author>galvanash</author>
	<datestamp>1267559820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will probably be interpreted as a flame, but it isn't meant to be one. The \_reason\_ these kinds of city ordinances exist is because people wanted them - and they wanted them because they help protect property values.</p><p>No matter how noble or righteous you might think ripping up your lawn and replacing it with wood chips is, it is still violating the ordinance.</p><p>If I lived next door I frankly wouldn't give a crap how Eco-friendly the sea of wood chips next door was - if it looked like crap and it was next to my house I would be pissed off. I'm all for creative ways to help the environment and save money - but not if it means violating ordinances that exist for very good reason.</p><p>Doing things like this is frankly makes you look like a child acting out... "The environment is more important than these stupid rules and there are just too many people that don't care about the environment so I will defy them in a effort to get the rules changed. So there!"</p><p>Yes, in the grand scheme of things the environment is more important. So what does that have to do exactly with this particular ordinance? Nothing, zip. The point is if you actually wanted to change the ordinance the way to go about it is to convince your neighbors its a good idea and go to the city council. Its done ALL THE TIME all over the country. Good luck with that in this particular case - people LIKE grass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will probably be interpreted as a flame , but it is n't meant to be one .
The \ _reason \ _ these kinds of city ordinances exist is because people wanted them - and they wanted them because they help protect property values.No matter how noble or righteous you might think ripping up your lawn and replacing it with wood chips is , it is still violating the ordinance.If I lived next door I frankly would n't give a crap how Eco-friendly the sea of wood chips next door was - if it looked like crap and it was next to my house I would be pissed off .
I 'm all for creative ways to help the environment and save money - but not if it means violating ordinances that exist for very good reason.Doing things like this is frankly makes you look like a child acting out... " The environment is more important than these stupid rules and there are just too many people that do n't care about the environment so I will defy them in a effort to get the rules changed .
So there !
" Yes , in the grand scheme of things the environment is more important .
So what does that have to do exactly with this particular ordinance ?
Nothing , zip .
The point is if you actually wanted to change the ordinance the way to go about it is to convince your neighbors its a good idea and go to the city council .
Its done ALL THE TIME all over the country .
Good luck with that in this particular case - people LIKE grass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will probably be interpreted as a flame, but it isn't meant to be one.
The \_reason\_ these kinds of city ordinances exist is because people wanted them - and they wanted them because they help protect property values.No matter how noble or righteous you might think ripping up your lawn and replacing it with wood chips is, it is still violating the ordinance.If I lived next door I frankly wouldn't give a crap how Eco-friendly the sea of wood chips next door was - if it looked like crap and it was next to my house I would be pissed off.
I'm all for creative ways to help the environment and save money - but not if it means violating ordinances that exist for very good reason.Doing things like this is frankly makes you look like a child acting out... "The environment is more important than these stupid rules and there are just too many people that don't care about the environment so I will defy them in a effort to get the rules changed.
So there!
"Yes, in the grand scheme of things the environment is more important.
So what does that have to do exactly with this particular ordinance?
Nothing, zip.
The point is if you actually wanted to change the ordinance the way to go about it is to convince your neighbors its a good idea and go to the city council.
Its done ALL THE TIME all over the country.
Good luck with that in this particular case - people LIKE grass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346790</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>jdgeorge</author>
	<datestamp>1267637280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is no such thing as a reasonable request when someone is trying to force someone to make their own property appear the way YOU want it to.</p></div><ul><li> Is it really "their own property" as long as they pay money annually for the right to live on it? (Property taxes)</li><li> When you choose to make your home somewhere, you implicitly agreeing to comply with the laws of that location, local, state, and federal. If you don't comply with some of those laws (for example, because they're stupid/repressive/unconstitutional laws) then you implicitly accept that you may have to face undesirable consequences, even if you're right and may eventually prevail in your arguments.</li><li> I'd rather see pictures of the property before I draw the conclusion that the city is being as completely idiotic as it seems. My guess is if the neighbors don't dislike the landscaping they've done, they'll be sufficiently supportive to get the city to back down.</li><li> I'm absolutely delighted to report that my neighbors do not share your views of property rights.</li></ul></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no such thing as a reasonable request when someone is trying to force someone to make their own property appear the way YOU want it to .
Is it really " their own property " as long as they pay money annually for the right to live on it ?
( Property taxes ) When you choose to make your home somewhere , you implicitly agreeing to comply with the laws of that location , local , state , and federal .
If you do n't comply with some of those laws ( for example , because they 're stupid/repressive/unconstitutional laws ) then you implicitly accept that you may have to face undesirable consequences , even if you 're right and may eventually prevail in your arguments .
I 'd rather see pictures of the property before I draw the conclusion that the city is being as completely idiotic as it seems .
My guess is if the neighbors do n't dislike the landscaping they 've done , they 'll be sufficiently supportive to get the city to back down .
I 'm absolutely delighted to report that my neighbors do not share your views of property rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no such thing as a reasonable request when someone is trying to force someone to make their own property appear the way YOU want it to.
Is it really "their own property" as long as they pay money annually for the right to live on it?
(Property taxes) When you choose to make your home somewhere, you implicitly agreeing to comply with the laws of that location, local, state, and federal.
If you don't comply with some of those laws (for example, because they're stupid/repressive/unconstitutional laws) then you implicitly accept that you may have to face undesirable consequences, even if you're right and may eventually prevail in your arguments.
I'd rather see pictures of the property before I draw the conclusion that the city is being as completely idiotic as it seems.
My guess is if the neighbors don't dislike the landscaping they've done, they'll be sufficiently supportive to get the city to back down.
I'm absolutely delighted to report that my neighbors do not share your views of property rights.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341772</id>
	<title>Astroturf!</title>
	<author>pentalive</author>
	<datestamp>1267649520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I could, I'd astroturf my lawn.</p></div><p>
A guy in a suburb of Sacramento (Natomas) did just that and had a better looking yard than many
of his neighbors but the city cited him anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I could , I 'd astroturf my lawn .
A guy in a suburb of Sacramento ( Natomas ) did just that and had a better looking yard than many of his neighbors but the city cited him anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I could, I'd astroturf my lawn.
A guy in a suburb of Sacramento (Natomas) did just that and had a better looking yard than many
of his neighbors but the city cited him anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267556460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I hate lawns and I think they're a big waste of resources. But as a homeowner, it's what keeps the property value going. I already have problems with the neighbors not paying their water bill (shared pipe mess, etc), and the association can't do much else other than give warnings that if they don't pay, then EVERYONE will lose water. We need the help from the city to force them to pay. But that's another story.</p><p>If the neighbors have visibly broken windows, doors, or damaged roof, it affects the surrounding property value. That's just the reality of it. Something as large and visible as a dead lawn makes it seem like the house is abandoned. And it's not like the city is saying, "hey keep it green and lush," but only that 40\% of the yard must have living plants - it doesn't specify what. That seems like a reasonable request. I'd just plant a cluster of cactuses in the corner. Welp, I think the property value will still go down with this tacky solution, but it would get the city off their backs. However, the neighbors might still complain and pass some oddball ordinance at the next city council meeting, and take effect the next year.</p><p>If I could, I'd astroturf my lawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I hate lawns and I think they 're a big waste of resources .
But as a homeowner , it 's what keeps the property value going .
I already have problems with the neighbors not paying their water bill ( shared pipe mess , etc ) , and the association ca n't do much else other than give warnings that if they do n't pay , then EVERYONE will lose water .
We need the help from the city to force them to pay .
But that 's another story.If the neighbors have visibly broken windows , doors , or damaged roof , it affects the surrounding property value .
That 's just the reality of it .
Something as large and visible as a dead lawn makes it seem like the house is abandoned .
And it 's not like the city is saying , " hey keep it green and lush , " but only that 40 \ % of the yard must have living plants - it does n't specify what .
That seems like a reasonable request .
I 'd just plant a cluster of cactuses in the corner .
Welp , I think the property value will still go down with this tacky solution , but it would get the city off their backs .
However , the neighbors might still complain and pass some oddball ordinance at the next city council meeting , and take effect the next year.If I could , I 'd astroturf my lawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I hate lawns and I think they're a big waste of resources.
But as a homeowner, it's what keeps the property value going.
I already have problems with the neighbors not paying their water bill (shared pipe mess, etc), and the association can't do much else other than give warnings that if they don't pay, then EVERYONE will lose water.
We need the help from the city to force them to pay.
But that's another story.If the neighbors have visibly broken windows, doors, or damaged roof, it affects the surrounding property value.
That's just the reality of it.
Something as large and visible as a dead lawn makes it seem like the house is abandoned.
And it's not like the city is saying, "hey keep it green and lush," but only that 40\% of the yard must have living plants - it doesn't specify what.
That seems like a reasonable request.
I'd just plant a cluster of cactuses in the corner.
Welp, I think the property value will still go down with this tacky solution, but it would get the city off their backs.
However, the neighbors might still complain and pass some oddball ordinance at the next city council meeting, and take effect the next year.If I could, I'd astroturf my lawn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31349236</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>shogun</author>
	<datestamp>1267648560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might want to look into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial\_title" title="wikipedia.org">allodial title</a> [wikipedia.org] then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might want to look into allodial title [ wikipedia.org ] then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might want to look into allodial title [wikipedia.org] then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345422</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267631520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This free-for-all attitude would easily lend itself to abuse. One person could come in, put up that 10-ft purple lawn gnome in the front yard, drive property values down, buy up the neighbors' houses as they are driven out, then take down the gnome and sell the houses at a profit.</p><p>Now if it's a six-foot purple gnome, in a backyard with a six-foot fence around it, I'll agree with you. But if you don't have *any* prohibitions, people will take it to the extreme. That's what people do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This free-for-all attitude would easily lend itself to abuse .
One person could come in , put up that 10-ft purple lawn gnome in the front yard , drive property values down , buy up the neighbors ' houses as they are driven out , then take down the gnome and sell the houses at a profit.Now if it 's a six-foot purple gnome , in a backyard with a six-foot fence around it , I 'll agree with you .
But if you do n't have * any * prohibitions , people will take it to the extreme .
That 's what people do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This free-for-all attitude would easily lend itself to abuse.
One person could come in, put up that 10-ft purple lawn gnome in the front yard, drive property values down, buy up the neighbors' houses as they are driven out, then take down the gnome and sell the houses at a profit.Now if it's a six-foot purple gnome, in a backyard with a six-foot fence around it, I'll agree with you.
But if you don't have *any* prohibitions, people will take it to the extreme.
That's what people do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341012</id>
	<title>Why not to live inside a city</title>
	<author>CodeDragonDM</author>
	<datestamp>1267556340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Things like this show why living inside city limits as a home owner is a nightmare.  If they read their city, county, and neighborhood by-laws, it probably stated something in legalese to the effect that the lawn had to be to a code that was only poorly worded as the legal body figured no one would test it.</p><p>It's a form of conservitism that demands zero conservation of natural resources, and these people can go to jail over it.  It's sick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Things like this show why living inside city limits as a home owner is a nightmare .
If they read their city , county , and neighborhood by-laws , it probably stated something in legalese to the effect that the lawn had to be to a code that was only poorly worded as the legal body figured no one would test it.It 's a form of conservitism that demands zero conservation of natural resources , and these people can go to jail over it .
It 's sick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Things like this show why living inside city limits as a home owner is a nightmare.
If they read their city, county, and neighborhood by-laws, it probably stated something in legalese to the effect that the lawn had to be to a code that was only poorly worded as the legal body figured no one would test it.It's a form of conservitism that demands zero conservation of natural resources, and these people can go to jail over it.
It's sick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31350978</id>
	<title>One more reason to give California back to Mexico.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267613460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This it the stupidest thing their government has done this week.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This it the stupidest thing their government has done this week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This it the stupidest thing their government has done this week.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346192</id>
	<title>Re:No one is wrong here...</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1267634700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure I'd go as far as to say that people have a <i>duty</i> to disobey laws they disagree with; that's just a recipe for anarchism. In certain extreme cases, like hiding your Jewish neighbors from the SS, sure, but over some silly county housing codes? As George Carlin famously noted once, half the population is of below average intelligence. Are you sure you want to rile up the kind of person who thinks turn signals are stupid?</p><p>That said, it's plainly a dumb law, and I hope the homeowners prevail. Knowing OC, though, I wouldn't hold my breath.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I 'd go as far as to say that people have a duty to disobey laws they disagree with ; that 's just a recipe for anarchism .
In certain extreme cases , like hiding your Jewish neighbors from the SS , sure , but over some silly county housing codes ?
As George Carlin famously noted once , half the population is of below average intelligence .
Are you sure you want to rile up the kind of person who thinks turn signals are stupid ? That said , it 's plainly a dumb law , and I hope the homeowners prevail .
Knowing OC , though , I would n't hold my breath .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I'd go as far as to say that people have a duty to disobey laws they disagree with; that's just a recipe for anarchism.
In certain extreme cases, like hiding your Jewish neighbors from the SS, sure, but over some silly county housing codes?
As George Carlin famously noted once, half the population is of below average intelligence.
Are you sure you want to rile up the kind of person who thinks turn signals are stupid?That said, it's plainly a dumb law, and I hope the homeowners prevail.
Knowing OC, though, I wouldn't hold my breath.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341460</id>
	<title>Re:No one is wrong here...</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1267646880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unrelenting rule of law often leads to stupid and even outright nasty things. That's why we also have this thing called common sense. The long-term solution is obviously to fix the law, but short-term, it is a perfectly sensible solution e.g. to have the executive branch refuse to enforce it, if it is absolutely clear that it is extremely unpopular.</p><p>I mean, would you prefer all the various ancient laws still on the books in US to also be enforced, just because they happen to be there?</p><p>Now, whether the law in this case is actually bad is another matter. I find it rather silly, to be honest, but perhaps it really is up to the community to set its standards; whether the level of intrusiveness in this case is reasonable or not is debatable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unrelenting rule of law often leads to stupid and even outright nasty things .
That 's why we also have this thing called common sense .
The long-term solution is obviously to fix the law , but short-term , it is a perfectly sensible solution e.g .
to have the executive branch refuse to enforce it , if it is absolutely clear that it is extremely unpopular.I mean , would you prefer all the various ancient laws still on the books in US to also be enforced , just because they happen to be there ? Now , whether the law in this case is actually bad is another matter .
I find it rather silly , to be honest , but perhaps it really is up to the community to set its standards ; whether the level of intrusiveness in this case is reasonable or not is debatable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unrelenting rule of law often leads to stupid and even outright nasty things.
That's why we also have this thing called common sense.
The long-term solution is obviously to fix the law, but short-term, it is a perfectly sensible solution e.g.
to have the executive branch refuse to enforce it, if it is absolutely clear that it is extremely unpopular.I mean, would you prefer all the various ancient laws still on the books in US to also be enforced, just because they happen to be there?Now, whether the law in this case is actually bad is another matter.
I find it rather silly, to be honest, but perhaps it really is up to the community to set its standards; whether the level of intrusiveness in this case is reasonable or not is debatable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345844</id>
	<title>City Attorney Summarizes it nicely</title>
	<author>sartin</author>
	<datestamp>1267633080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"Compliance, that's all we've ever wanted," said Senior Assistant City Atty. Wayne Winthers.</p></div><p>It's not about green. It's not about live. It's not about water. It's not about eco. It's not about reasonable alternatives. It's not about whether the law is a good idea. It's about compliance. Typical bureaucracy</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA : " Compliance , that 's all we 've ever wanted , " said Senior Assistant City Atty .
Wayne Winthers.It 's not about green .
It 's not about live .
It 's not about water .
It 's not about eco .
It 's not about reasonable alternatives .
It 's not about whether the law is a good idea .
It 's about compliance .
Typical bureaucracy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFA:"Compliance, that's all we've ever wanted," said Senior Assistant City Atty.
Wayne Winthers.It's not about green.
It's not about live.
It's not about water.
It's not about eco.
It's not about reasonable alternatives.
It's not about whether the law is a good idea.
It's about compliance.
Typical bureaucracy
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347000</id>
	<title>Re:I lived there for better than a dozen years...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267638060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahhh... the ubiquitous "prop 65 warning".</p><p>Yes, sometimes it's a bit silly.  However, the
"nicer" places will do what they can to get rid of
the sign.  Also, I never knew that imported balsamic
vinegar had lead until I saw the Prop 65 warning
at Whole Foods.  Labeling the entire building is a
CYA tactic.  You only have to label certain items in
a setting like a grocery store.  Whole Foods did that,
and it was helpful.  Obviously you don't assume the
organic broccoli you just paid twice as much for is
going to give you cancer, unless it's got the warning
in which case you don't buy it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahhh... the ubiquitous " prop 65 warning " .Yes , sometimes it 's a bit silly .
However , the " nicer " places will do what they can to get rid of the sign .
Also , I never knew that imported balsamic vinegar had lead until I saw the Prop 65 warning at Whole Foods .
Labeling the entire building is a CYA tactic .
You only have to label certain items in a setting like a grocery store .
Whole Foods did that , and it was helpful .
Obviously you do n't assume the organic broccoli you just paid twice as much for is going to give you cancer , unless it 's got the warning in which case you do n't buy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahhh... the ubiquitous "prop 65 warning".Yes, sometimes it's a bit silly.
However, the
"nicer" places will do what they can to get rid of
the sign.
Also, I never knew that imported balsamic
vinegar had lead until I saw the Prop 65 warning
at Whole Foods.
Labeling the entire building is a
CYA tactic.
You only have to label certain items in
a setting like a grocery store.
Whole Foods did that,
and it was helpful.
Obviously you don't assume the
organic broccoli you just paid twice as much for is
going to give you cancer, unless it's got the warning
in which case you don't buy it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341218</id>
	<title>These People</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1267558260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>are obviously a threat to our security and the sanctity of the community. The government is doing the right thing here. (NOTE: stupid people with mod points-- this is sarcasm).</htmltext>
<tokenext>are obviously a threat to our security and the sanctity of the community .
The government is doing the right thing here .
( NOTE : stupid people with mod points-- this is sarcasm ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are obviously a threat to our security and the sanctity of the community.
The government is doing the right thing here.
(NOTE: stupid people with mod points-- this is sarcasm).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346558</id>
	<title>Lucky not to live in Houston</title>
	<author>ElmoGonzo</author>
	<datestamp>1267636380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they lived in Houston, they'd be dealing with a Home Owners Association which would levy a fine and if they didn't pay the fine the HOA would institute foreclosure proceedings and sell their house out from under them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they lived in Houston , they 'd be dealing with a Home Owners Association which would levy a fine and if they did n't pay the fine the HOA would institute foreclosure proceedings and sell their house out from under them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they lived in Houston, they'd be dealing with a Home Owners Association which would levy a fine and if they didn't pay the fine the HOA would institute foreclosure proceedings and sell their house out from under them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343242</id>
	<title>Re:Lone voice of reason...</title>
	<author>funkatron</author>
	<datestamp>1267619100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a joke? Suggesting people get the law changed in order to have their garden landscaped differently. Thats a bit too right wing/centre right (pick one or more, they only differ by a wobble in the tax rate) to actually be taken seriously.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a joke ?
Suggesting people get the law changed in order to have their garden landscaped differently .
Thats a bit too right wing/centre right ( pick one or more , they only differ by a wobble in the tax rate ) to actually be taken seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a joke?
Suggesting people get the law changed in order to have their garden landscaped differently.
Thats a bit too right wing/centre right (pick one or more, they only differ by a wobble in the tax rate) to actually be taken seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341576</id>
	<title>Stupidity</title>
	<author>s-whs</author>
	<datestamp>1267648080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>
What annoyed me was this:<blockquote><div><p> 'It's just funny that we pay our taxes to the city and the city is now prosecuting us with our own money,' says Quan Ha."</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

A mind bogglingly stupid thing to say. Prosecution is always done with taxpayer's money. It's not funny, it's downright scary that anyone can make such a moronic comment. The reason 'Quan Ha' does it is of course a lack of real arguments... (A very well known type of tactic for certain people, i.e. a certain personality)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What annoyed me was this : 'It 's just funny that we pay our taxes to the city and the city is now prosecuting us with our own money, ' says Quan Ha .
" A mind bogglingly stupid thing to say .
Prosecution is always done with taxpayer 's money .
It 's not funny , it 's downright scary that anyone can make such a moronic comment .
The reason 'Quan Ha ' does it is of course a lack of real arguments... ( A very well known type of tactic for certain people , i.e .
a certain personality )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
What annoyed me was this: 'It's just funny that we pay our taxes to the city and the city is now prosecuting us with our own money,' says Quan Ha.
"


A mind bogglingly stupid thing to say.
Prosecution is always done with taxpayer's money.
It's not funny, it's downright scary that anyone can make such a moronic comment.
The reason 'Quan Ha' does it is of course a lack of real arguments... (A very well known type of tactic for certain people, i.e.
a certain personality)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341284</id>
	<title>Foolish, shallow, and irresponsible decision</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267558920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The next time there's a water shortage, that community should bear the overwhelming brunt of it.  Heavy-handed, forced waste in the face of scarcity?  They deserve to face the consequences of their actions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The next time there 's a water shortage , that community should bear the overwhelming brunt of it .
Heavy-handed , forced waste in the face of scarcity ?
They deserve to face the consequences of their actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The next time there's a water shortage, that community should bear the overwhelming brunt of it.
Heavy-handed, forced waste in the face of scarcity?
They deserve to face the consequences of their actions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346372</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing Summary</title>
	<author>annodomini</author>
	<datestamp>1267635420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't exactly help that the county and city have the same name, and the article mentions both the city and the Orange County District Court.
</p><p>
In California, counties seem to be a lot more important than in most of the rest of the country (or, at least, the East coast, where I'm from). And many counties share the same name as the largest city within them. For instance, there's San Diego, the city, and San Diego county. The City of Orange, and Orange County. The City of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles County. Sacramento County, and Sacramento. San Francisco is both a county and a city. So, it's easy to confuse them.
</p><p>
It sounds like it's actually the city of Orange that is in a legal battle with them, but that battle is taking place in the Orange County courts. So, yes, the article is a bit sloppy, but the confusion is easy because the county is involved as well, and shares the same name.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't exactly help that the county and city have the same name , and the article mentions both the city and the Orange County District Court .
In California , counties seem to be a lot more important than in most of the rest of the country ( or , at least , the East coast , where I 'm from ) .
And many counties share the same name as the largest city within them .
For instance , there 's San Diego , the city , and San Diego county .
The City of Orange , and Orange County .
The City of Los Angeles , and Los Angeles County .
Sacramento County , and Sacramento .
San Francisco is both a county and a city .
So , it 's easy to confuse them .
It sounds like it 's actually the city of Orange that is in a legal battle with them , but that battle is taking place in the Orange County courts .
So , yes , the article is a bit sloppy , but the confusion is easy because the county is involved as well , and shares the same name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't exactly help that the county and city have the same name, and the article mentions both the city and the Orange County District Court.
In California, counties seem to be a lot more important than in most of the rest of the country (or, at least, the East coast, where I'm from).
And many counties share the same name as the largest city within them.
For instance, there's San Diego, the city, and San Diego county.
The City of Orange, and Orange County.
The City of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles County.
Sacramento County, and Sacramento.
San Francisco is both a county and a city.
So, it's easy to confuse them.
It sounds like it's actually the city of Orange that is in a legal battle with them, but that battle is taking place in the Orange County courts.
So, yes, the article is a bit sloppy, but the confusion is easy because the county is involved as well, and shares the same name.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341270</id>
	<title>Re:Fire hazard</title>
	<author>elvesrus</author>
	<datestamp>1267558800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slight problem with your argument. The ocean is maybe 10 miles away, and the desert is a bit more inland.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slight problem with your argument .
The ocean is maybe 10 miles away , and the desert is a bit more inland .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slight problem with your argument.
The ocean is maybe 10 miles away, and the desert is a bit more inland.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340966</id>
	<title>Penn &amp; Teller are always ahead ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267556040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's NSFSC (Not Safe For Stupid Christians) and NSFOW (Not Safe for Orwellian Workplaces)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's NSFSC ( Not Safe For Stupid Christians ) and NSFOW ( Not Safe for Orwellian Workplaces )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's NSFSC (Not Safe For Stupid Christians) and NSFOW (Not Safe for Orwellian Workplaces)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340908</id>
	<title>They should have...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267555680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...just let the lawn die.</p><p>It was most likely the suddenness of removal that made the authorities react.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...just let the lawn die.It was most likely the suddenness of removal that made the authorities react .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...just let the lawn die.It was most likely the suddenness of removal that made the authorities react.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341332</id>
	<title>grass-free and eco-friendly landscaping scheme</title>
	<author>tokul</author>
	<datestamp>1267559340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>only if eco is short form for economy. The fact that they destroyed all grass on their land is not ecologically friendly. By not maintaining grass they are only worsening region's drough issues.</htmltext>
<tokenext>only if eco is short form for economy .
The fact that they destroyed all grass on their land is not ecologically friendly .
By not maintaining grass they are only worsening region 's drough issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>only if eco is short form for economy.
The fact that they destroyed all grass on their land is not ecologically friendly.
By not maintaining grass they are only worsening region's drough issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31348208</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>c++0xFF</author>
	<datestamp>1267643520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You don't have a right to high property values.  Period.  And you know it.</p></div><p>So what gives someone else the right to harm me (and everyone else in the community) financially?  The right isn't to have "high property values" (although that's what many want), but it is a right against harm from another person.</p><p>The city and county, however, do have an interest in preserving high property values: the more the property is worth, the more they make on taxes.  I personally think that's why the laws get so absurd (and many of them are): the government will do anything for a larger income without actually increasing tax rates.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't have a right to high property values .
Period. And you know it.So what gives someone else the right to harm me ( and everyone else in the community ) financially ?
The right is n't to have " high property values " ( although that 's what many want ) , but it is a right against harm from another person.The city and county , however , do have an interest in preserving high property values : the more the property is worth , the more they make on taxes .
I personally think that 's why the laws get so absurd ( and many of them are ) : the government will do anything for a larger income without actually increasing tax rates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't have a right to high property values.
Period.  And you know it.So what gives someone else the right to harm me (and everyone else in the community) financially?
The right isn't to have "high property values" (although that's what many want), but it is a right against harm from another person.The city and county, however, do have an interest in preserving high property values: the more the property is worth, the more they make on taxes.
I personally think that's why the laws get so absurd (and many of them are): the government will do anything for a larger income without actually increasing tax rates.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341190</id>
	<title>covering 40\%</title>
	<author>OnePumpChump</author>
	<datestamp>1267557900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are low-lying, wide-spreading shrubs that do not require watering in even drier climates than theirs that could easily be arranged to cover 40\% of that yard.  They can stick with their approach and still give the finger to their city of assholes.

My dad's front yard has some...not sure what they're called but the cats love them (probably because the lizards love them).</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are low-lying , wide-spreading shrubs that do not require watering in even drier climates than theirs that could easily be arranged to cover 40 \ % of that yard .
They can stick with their approach and still give the finger to their city of assholes .
My dad 's front yard has some...not sure what they 're called but the cats love them ( probably because the lizards love them ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are low-lying, wide-spreading shrubs that do not require watering in even drier climates than theirs that could easily be arranged to cover 40\% of that yard.
They can stick with their approach and still give the finger to their city of assholes.
My dad's front yard has some...not sure what they're called but the cats love them (probably because the lizards love them).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347634</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who grew up in the country...</title>
	<author>c++0xFF</author>
	<datestamp>1267640640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My HOA disallows backyard clotheslines.  Obviously, that "logic" is terrible.</p><p>However, I think the true reasoning is something more akin to what is going on from TFA: some people want to look out their windows and not see a trashy neighborhood.</p><p>I think they see clotheslines or drying clothes ugly and invading their view.  I live in a hilly neighborhood with two-story buildings: back yards aren't very private.  "I don't care that it's in someone else's yard: I still have to look at it!"  It's not the perception of wealth that makes the difference here, at least not directly.</p><p>Front yards are even less private.  The people who think that nobody else should have ugly clothes lines also think that Xeriscaping is ugly and should be illegal.  I personally think that Xeriscaping can be done very beautifully (and possibly even within the laws in question).  At the same time, grass laws can become very ugly very easily (by not watering or mowing).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My HOA disallows backyard clotheslines .
Obviously , that " logic " is terrible.However , I think the true reasoning is something more akin to what is going on from TFA : some people want to look out their windows and not see a trashy neighborhood.I think they see clotheslines or drying clothes ugly and invading their view .
I live in a hilly neighborhood with two-story buildings : back yards are n't very private .
" I do n't care that it 's in someone else 's yard : I still have to look at it !
" It 's not the perception of wealth that makes the difference here , at least not directly.Front yards are even less private .
The people who think that nobody else should have ugly clothes lines also think that Xeriscaping is ugly and should be illegal .
I personally think that Xeriscaping can be done very beautifully ( and possibly even within the laws in question ) .
At the same time , grass laws can become very ugly very easily ( by not watering or mowing ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My HOA disallows backyard clotheslines.
Obviously, that "logic" is terrible.However, I think the true reasoning is something more akin to what is going on from TFA: some people want to look out their windows and not see a trashy neighborhood.I think they see clotheslines or drying clothes ugly and invading their view.
I live in a hilly neighborhood with two-story buildings: back yards aren't very private.
"I don't care that it's in someone else's yard: I still have to look at it!
"  It's not the perception of wealth that makes the difference here, at least not directly.Front yards are even less private.
The people who think that nobody else should have ugly clothes lines also think that Xeriscaping is ugly and should be illegal.
I personally think that Xeriscaping can be done very beautifully (and possibly even within the laws in question).
At the same time, grass laws can become very ugly very easily (by not watering or mowing).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341132</id>
	<title>I have to say</title>
	<author>urusan</author>
	<datestamp>1267557300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their lawn actually looks pretty good in that photo. It's got to be pretty low maintenance, and it saves them water money too. All of these things are desirable attributes.</p><p>I'm not an environmentalist myself, but it seems to me that their lawn is a very good fit for their local environment. It is well designed and integrated.</p><p>I wonder why the city is freaking out so badly. Do they consider it a fire hazard? Did the couple piss off somebody at city hall? Is the city administration just very strict about implementing its regulations?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their lawn actually looks pretty good in that photo .
It 's got to be pretty low maintenance , and it saves them water money too .
All of these things are desirable attributes.I 'm not an environmentalist myself , but it seems to me that their lawn is a very good fit for their local environment .
It is well designed and integrated.I wonder why the city is freaking out so badly .
Do they consider it a fire hazard ?
Did the couple piss off somebody at city hall ?
Is the city administration just very strict about implementing its regulations ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their lawn actually looks pretty good in that photo.
It's got to be pretty low maintenance, and it saves them water money too.
All of these things are desirable attributes.I'm not an environmentalist myself, but it seems to me that their lawn is a very good fit for their local environment.
It is well designed and integrated.I wonder why the city is freaking out so badly.
Do they consider it a fire hazard?
Did the couple piss off somebody at city hall?
Is the city administration just very strict about implementing its regulations?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343852</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>Itchyeyes</author>
	<datestamp>1267623480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps I'm not understanding something here, but why should your neighbor care about your home's value?</p></div><p>Because most people have a large percentage of their assets tied up in their home and few people stay in a single home longer than seven years.  So even if they don't mind your decorating decisions, when they go to sell their home the value of the home is impacted by the eyesore next door.  Because, while many people may not mind staying next to a bothersome neighbor, they're not going to consciously choose to live next to one if there are other options available.  So by painting your front lawn with grey paint, you're imposing an externality on those around you.  That is, you're not bearing the full cost that your decision to paint your lawn imposes on the rest of society, and therefore you're not properly weighing the benefits to you against the full, true cost of the decision.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps I 'm not understanding something here , but why should your neighbor care about your home 's value ? Because most people have a large percentage of their assets tied up in their home and few people stay in a single home longer than seven years .
So even if they do n't mind your decorating decisions , when they go to sell their home the value of the home is impacted by the eyesore next door .
Because , while many people may not mind staying next to a bothersome neighbor , they 're not going to consciously choose to live next to one if there are other options available .
So by painting your front lawn with grey paint , you 're imposing an externality on those around you .
That is , you 're not bearing the full cost that your decision to paint your lawn imposes on the rest of society , and therefore you 're not properly weighing the benefits to you against the full , true cost of the decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps I'm not understanding something here, but why should your neighbor care about your home's value?Because most people have a large percentage of their assets tied up in their home and few people stay in a single home longer than seven years.
So even if they don't mind your decorating decisions, when they go to sell their home the value of the home is impacted by the eyesore next door.
Because, while many people may not mind staying next to a bothersome neighbor, they're not going to consciously choose to live next to one if there are other options available.
So by painting your front lawn with grey paint, you're imposing an externality on those around you.
That is, you're not bearing the full cost that your decision to paint your lawn imposes on the rest of society, and therefore you're not properly weighing the benefits to you against the full, true cost of the decision.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342316</id>
	<title>Re:Confusing Summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267610940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The City of Orange, one of many "cities" within Orange County.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The City of Orange , one of many " cities " within Orange County .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The City of Orange, one of many "cities" within Orange County.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341958</id>
	<title>Re:Idiots... the rest of the county is conserving</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267607580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even worse...</p><p>Up im Marin county, they conserve water. In fact, they've done such a good job conserving and reducing their water footprint; that the local utility company has decided their profits are no longer as high as they'd like, so they're about to jack up water rates!</p><p>Way to send the wrong message, idiots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even worse...Up im Marin county , they conserve water .
In fact , they 've done such a good job conserving and reducing their water footprint ; that the local utility company has decided their profits are no longer as high as they 'd like , so they 're about to jack up water rates ! Way to send the wrong message , idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even worse...Up im Marin county, they conserve water.
In fact, they've done such a good job conserving and reducing their water footprint; that the local utility company has decided their profits are no longer as high as they'd like, so they're about to jack up water rates!Way to send the wrong message, idiots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341166</id>
	<title>lawns and SoCal</title>
	<author>OnePumpChump</author>
	<datestamp>1267557660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lawns are an abomination (at least if you don't have enough rainfall to support one), and Southern California is a hellhole.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lawns are an abomination ( at least if you do n't have enough rainfall to support one ) , and Southern California is a hellhole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lawns are an abomination (at least if you don't have enough rainfall to support one), and Southern California is a hellhole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31348488</id>
	<title>Re:No one is wrong here...</title>
	<author>dziman</author>
	<datestamp>1267644780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about removing the people from office that are for enforcing this law? Or installing people into office that will repeal the law?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about removing the people from office that are for enforcing this law ?
Or installing people into office that will repeal the law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about removing the people from office that are for enforcing this law?
Or installing people into office that will repeal the law?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341466</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267647000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't own your land ever.  Stop paying your (rent) property taxes to the government and you will find out how much that land is yours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't own your land ever .
Stop paying your ( rent ) property taxes to the government and you will find out how much that land is yours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't own your land ever.
Stop paying your (rent) property taxes to the government and you will find out how much that land is yours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343210</id>
	<title>Re:I lived there for better than a dozen years...</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1267618680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Sadly, I can't think of any viable solution to the problem."</p><p>Live elsewhere and laugh as their economy crashes? They voted and are getting exactly what they asked for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Sadly , I ca n't think of any viable solution to the problem .
" Live elsewhere and laugh as their economy crashes ?
They voted and are getting exactly what they asked for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Sadly, I can't think of any viable solution to the problem.
"Live elsewhere and laugh as their economy crashes?
They voted and are getting exactly what they asked for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342230</id>
	<title>Re:property value of a lawn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267610220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe that's why the law says "40\% living landscaping" instead of 40\% lawn?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe that 's why the law says " 40 \ % living landscaping " instead of 40 \ % lawn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe that's why the law says "40\% living landscaping" instead of 40\% lawn?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341302</id>
	<title>Re:electrolytes</title>
	<author>LoRdTAW</author>
	<datestamp>1267559160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its got lectrolights</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its got lectrolights</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its got lectrolights</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344112</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>oudzeeman</author>
	<datestamp>1267625220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I live in a neighborhood in a small Maine city that was developed in a couple phases, the first major phase was developed in the late 60s/early70s, the second was in the mid - late 90s. There are covenants here that somewhat limit what you can do with your property, many were concerned with the initial construction while a few were not (house must be a certain size/cost at construction, no mobile homes, no commercial vehicles parked in driveways,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...). Most new subdivisions will, at the very least, have requirements on initial construction, and some require things like window blinds, outside lights that are kept on at night, and landscaping.  Other towns in Maine have limitations on color/appearance of houses, especially in historic parts of town, but it a lot of rural areas in Maine it is indeed a free for all... and you end up with people that have 5 nonworking cars on their law, or a sailboat that hasn't seen water in 20 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in a neighborhood in a small Maine city that was developed in a couple phases , the first major phase was developed in the late 60s/early70s , the second was in the mid - late 90s .
There are covenants here that somewhat limit what you can do with your property , many were concerned with the initial construction while a few were not ( house must be a certain size/cost at construction , no mobile homes , no commercial vehicles parked in driveways , ... ) .
Most new subdivisions will , at the very least , have requirements on initial construction , and some require things like window blinds , outside lights that are kept on at night , and landscaping .
Other towns in Maine have limitations on color/appearance of houses , especially in historic parts of town , but it a lot of rural areas in Maine it is indeed a free for all... and you end up with people that have 5 nonworking cars on their law , or a sailboat that has n't seen water in 20 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in a neighborhood in a small Maine city that was developed in a couple phases, the first major phase was developed in the late 60s/early70s, the second was in the mid - late 90s.
There are covenants here that somewhat limit what you can do with your property, many were concerned with the initial construction while a few were not (house must be a certain size/cost at construction, no mobile homes, no commercial vehicles parked in driveways, ...).
Most new subdivisions will, at the very least, have requirements on initial construction, and some require things like window blinds, outside lights that are kept on at night, and landscaping.
Other towns in Maine have limitations on color/appearance of houses, especially in historic parts of town, but it a lot of rural areas in Maine it is indeed a free for all... and you end up with people that have 5 nonworking cars on their law, or a sailboat that hasn't seen water in 20 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344510</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>jimbobborg</author>
	<datestamp>1267627260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also live in VA and the mandating of lawn mowing is for safety.  It's tough seeing a Copperhead or other poisonous snake when you can't see the ground.  You didn't have that problem in Maine because there are no poisonous snakes in Maine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also live in VA and the mandating of lawn mowing is for safety .
It 's tough seeing a Copperhead or other poisonous snake when you ca n't see the ground .
You did n't have that problem in Maine because there are no poisonous snakes in Maine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also live in VA and the mandating of lawn mowing is for safety.
It's tough seeing a Copperhead or other poisonous snake when you can't see the ground.
You didn't have that problem in Maine because there are no poisonous snakes in Maine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342862</id>
	<title>Re:It's not entirely their own</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267615620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You guys have property taxes up in Canadia?</p><p>Property taxes down here at least mean people don't own their land - they're merely renting it.</p><p>And let's not even get into eminent domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You guys have property taxes up in Canadia ? Property taxes down here at least mean people do n't own their land - they 're merely renting it.And let 's not even get into eminent domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You guys have property taxes up in Canadia?Property taxes down here at least mean people don't own their land - they're merely renting it.And let's not even get into eminent domain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340922</id>
	<title>I see you</title>
	<author>Kitkoan</author>
	<datestamp>1267555740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now get off my lawn</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now get off my lawn</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now get off my lawn</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341384</id>
	<title>Re:I see you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267559820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I waited for years, and finally turned 40 which I thought was the age at which I can be cantankerous.  Went at long last to yell at some kids to get off my lawn... bloody drought totally ruined my big moment!!</p><p>"Hey you!! Get off my law....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>aw crap!  Nevermind..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I waited for years , and finally turned 40 which I thought was the age at which I can be cantankerous .
Went at long last to yell at some kids to get off my lawn... bloody drought totally ruined my big moment ! !
" Hey you ! !
Get off my law.... ...aw crap !
Nevermind... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I waited for years, and finally turned 40 which I thought was the age at which I can be cantankerous.
Went at long last to yell at some kids to get off my lawn... bloody drought totally ruined my big moment!!
"Hey you!!
Get off my law.... ...aw crap!
Nevermind..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345742</id>
	<title>Re:Revenue Streams</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267632660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably not but California does have a history.  There was an effort one year to encourage Californians to reduce their water consumption...they did but more than was expected.  Water utility prices rose after the reduction in consumption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably not but California does have a history .
There was an effort one year to encourage Californians to reduce their water consumption...they did but more than was expected .
Water utility prices rose after the reduction in consumption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably not but California does have a history.
There was an effort one year to encourage Californians to reduce their water consumption...they did but more than was expected.
Water utility prices rose after the reduction in consumption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342480</id>
	<title>Re:I see you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267612260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see you</p><p>Leave Pandora alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see youLeave Pandora alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see youLeave Pandora alone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340922</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341114</id>
	<title>Fire hazard</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1267557180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wood chips are combustible.  They live in a desert.  That's a fire hazard.  Better to pave it over and paint it green.
</p><p>Speaking of which... they live in a desert.  The only reason they ever had water to put on their lawn is that they import it via aqueducts over 200 miles, transforming the source from a formerly verdant valley into an arid desert.
</p><p>I'm not sure where the city/county is trying to go here.  Normally they pretend to try and be a little eco-friendly in granolaland.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wood chips are combustible .
They live in a desert .
That 's a fire hazard .
Better to pave it over and paint it green .
Speaking of which... they live in a desert .
The only reason they ever had water to put on their lawn is that they import it via aqueducts over 200 miles , transforming the source from a formerly verdant valley into an arid desert .
I 'm not sure where the city/county is trying to go here .
Normally they pretend to try and be a little eco-friendly in granolaland .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wood chips are combustible.
They live in a desert.
That's a fire hazard.
Better to pave it over and paint it green.
Speaking of which... they live in a desert.
The only reason they ever had water to put on their lawn is that they import it via aqueducts over 200 miles, transforming the source from a formerly verdant valley into an arid desert.
I'm not sure where the city/county is trying to go here.
Normally they pretend to try and be a little eco-friendly in granolaland.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341100</id>
	<title>Re:Why not to live inside a city</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267557000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>But the city has fast internets!</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the city has fast internets !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the city has fast internets!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345866</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>tck1000</author>
	<datestamp>1267633200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But the state's interest in defending property should be first and foremost to defend the right of a property's owner to use it as they see fit;</p></div><p>Unfortunately, human beings are notorious for their tendencies to act in their own interest before applying another person's interest.  Here, you have a local government which earns a substantial percentage of it's revenue from property taxes, and people pay more property taxes when they live on more valuable property, thus a disincentive is created for the local government to defend the right of a property owner to do use property as they see fit.   The government has a *much* larger incentive to maintain the status quo, enforcing laws like this that create a social image that increases, or at the very least maintains, property values.   Money is the real reason behind most of the activities that involve humans.  That money may be in the form of taxes, or oil, or land, or gold, but as far back as humans go - it's always about the money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the state 's interest in defending property should be first and foremost to defend the right of a property 's owner to use it as they see fit ; Unfortunately , human beings are notorious for their tendencies to act in their own interest before applying another person 's interest .
Here , you have a local government which earns a substantial percentage of it 's revenue from property taxes , and people pay more property taxes when they live on more valuable property , thus a disincentive is created for the local government to defend the right of a property owner to do use property as they see fit .
The government has a * much * larger incentive to maintain the status quo , enforcing laws like this that create a social image that increases , or at the very least maintains , property values .
Money is the real reason behind most of the activities that involve humans .
That money may be in the form of taxes , or oil , or land , or gold , but as far back as humans go - it 's always about the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the state's interest in defending property should be first and foremost to defend the right of a property's owner to use it as they see fit;Unfortunately, human beings are notorious for their tendencies to act in their own interest before applying another person's interest.
Here, you have a local government which earns a substantial percentage of it's revenue from property taxes, and people pay more property taxes when they live on more valuable property, thus a disincentive is created for the local government to defend the right of a property owner to do use property as they see fit.
The government has a *much* larger incentive to maintain the status quo, enforcing laws like this that create a social image that increases, or at the very least maintains, property values.
Money is the real reason behind most of the activities that involve humans.
That money may be in the form of taxes, or oil, or land, or gold, but as far back as humans go - it's always about the money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345852</id>
	<title>Re:It's not entirely their own</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1267633140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OC is a desert. Yes.</p><p>Residents are expected to have lawns of the quality you&rsquo;d find at a golf course. Yes.</p><p>It costs a lot, and it uses a lot of water that is in scarce supply. Yes.</p><p>They chose to live there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OC is a desert .
Yes.Residents are expected to have lawns of the quality you    d find at a golf course .
Yes.It costs a lot , and it uses a lot of water that is in scarce supply .
Yes.They chose to live there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OC is a desert.
Yes.Residents are expected to have lawns of the quality you’d find at a golf course.
Yes.It costs a lot, and it uses a lot of water that is in scarce supply.
Yes.They chose to live there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345362</id>
	<title>Re:It's their lawn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267631280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>and here's another example of either a troll, or the utter death of common sense.  there's a world of difference between landscaping with plant matter and landscaping with junk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and here 's another example of either a troll , or the utter death of common sense .
there 's a world of difference between landscaping with plant matter and landscaping with junk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and here's another example of either a troll, or the utter death of common sense.
there's a world of difference between landscaping with plant matter and landscaping with junk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341676</id>
	<title>Re:No one is wrong here...</title>
	<author>hellop2</author>
	<datestamp>1267648740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Their argument in court should be that since their wood chips are covered in bacteria, they in fact have 100\% "live" ground cover.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their argument in court should be that since their wood chips are covered in bacteria , they in fact have 100 \ % " live " ground cover .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their argument in court should be that since their wood chips are covered in bacteria, they in fact have 100\% "live" ground cover.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341516</id>
	<title>Something More Practical</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1267647480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rather than force people to do things like this, just require they pay a reasonable penalty or fee. The money can then be spent on other conservation projects. A <b>fee is a good compromise</b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than force people to do things like this , just require they pay a reasonable penalty or fee .
The money can then be spent on other conservation projects .
A fee is a good compromise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than force people to do things like this, just require they pay a reasonable penalty or fee.
The money can then be spent on other conservation projects.
A fee is a good compromise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341480</id>
	<title>Grass is only useful if you have cows.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267647120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lavender and rosemary smell nice and are used as culinary herbs and for their scents.  Horsetail can be used to clean metal.  Pittosporum is a source of biofuel.   I fail to see what the problem is with the Ha family growing plants that use less water and have more human uses than grass.  Grass is just pretty green carpet unless you have farm animals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lavender and rosemary smell nice and are used as culinary herbs and for their scents .
Horsetail can be used to clean metal .
Pittosporum is a source of biofuel .
I fail to see what the problem is with the Ha family growing plants that use less water and have more human uses than grass .
Grass is just pretty green carpet unless you have farm animals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lavender and rosemary smell nice and are used as culinary herbs and for their scents.
Horsetail can be used to clean metal.
Pittosporum is a source of biofuel.
I fail to see what the problem is with the Ha family growing plants that use less water and have more human uses than grass.
Grass is just pretty green carpet unless you have farm animals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346220</id>
	<title>Re:No one is wrong here...</title>
	<author>tbuskey</author>
	<datestamp>1267634880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They've got it 100\% covered with bark now.</p><p>In any event, who the hell waters their lawn?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've got it 100 \ % covered with bark now.In any event , who the hell waters their lawn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've got it 100\% covered with bark now.In any event, who the hell waters their lawn?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31362920</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267698420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you read the article?<br>They tore out the lawn.<br>Then the city cited them.<br>Then they put up a fence and a small number of plants.<br>Then the city cited them for still not having met the requirements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you read the article ? They tore out the lawn.Then the city cited them.Then they put up a fence and a small number of plants.Then the city cited them for still not having met the requirements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you read the article?They tore out the lawn.Then the city cited them.Then they put up a fence and a small number of plants.Then the city cited them for still not having met the requirements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341756</id>
	<title>Perfect solution!</title>
	<author>Plekto</author>
	<datestamp>1267649340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plant Yucca.  Nothing but big giant pointy nasty sharp Yucca plants.  Bonus points for a Cactus or two.  No water required and that 40\% requirement will be a cinch to meet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plant Yucca .
Nothing but big giant pointy nasty sharp Yucca plants .
Bonus points for a Cactus or two .
No water required and that 40 \ % requirement will be a cinch to meet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plant Yucca.
Nothing but big giant pointy nasty sharp Yucca plants.
Bonus points for a Cactus or two.
No water required and that 40\% requirement will be a cinch to meet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345530</id>
	<title>Re:property value of a lawn</title>
	<author>tsstahl</author>
	<datestamp>1267632000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Forest looks damn lovely.</p></div><p>Yea, but you gotta thin it out every 30 or 40 years.  Who wants THAT kind of obligation hanging over you head?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:o</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forest looks damn lovely.Yea , but you got ta thin it out every 30 or 40 years .
Who wants THAT kind of obligation hanging over you head ?
: o</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forest looks damn lovely.Yea, but you gotta thin it out every 30 or 40 years.
Who wants THAT kind of obligation hanging over you head?
:o
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343162</id>
	<title>Re:Lone voice of reason...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267618260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i'm sure you'll be happy when all your neighbors replace their entire yards with open-air compost?<br>instead of burying dead people and animals we can just throw those on the compost pile too.<br>meanwhile, you can ask them to build solar panels so high that they block all sunlight reaching your house.<br>there are rules about what you can and cannot do on your own property because they will cause problems to other people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i 'm sure you 'll be happy when all your neighbors replace their entire yards with open-air compost ? instead of burying dead people and animals we can just throw those on the compost pile too.meanwhile , you can ask them to build solar panels so high that they block all sunlight reaching your house.there are rules about what you can and can not do on your own property because they will cause problems to other people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i'm sure you'll be happy when all your neighbors replace their entire yards with open-air compost?instead of burying dead people and animals we can just throw those on the compost pile too.meanwhile, you can ask them to build solar panels so high that they block all sunlight reaching your house.there are rules about what you can and cannot do on your own property because they will cause problems to other people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341536</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267647660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no such thing as a reasonable request when someone is trying to force someone to make their own property appear the way YOU want it to.  No, not even "no broken windows" or even "no purple 10-foot lawn gnomes".</p><p>Don't give me that filthy lie about how "wah, they lowered my precious property values!" can provide even the most remote excuse.  You don't have a right to high property values.  Period.  And you know it.</p><p>You, and anyone else who is less than 100\% against the city on this issue, are violently anti-freedom and cannot possibly die painfully enough or soon enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no such thing as a reasonable request when someone is trying to force someone to make their own property appear the way YOU want it to .
No , not even " no broken windows " or even " no purple 10-foot lawn gnomes " .Do n't give me that filthy lie about how " wah , they lowered my precious property values !
" can provide even the most remote excuse .
You do n't have a right to high property values .
Period. And you know it.You , and anyone else who is less than 100 \ % against the city on this issue , are violently anti-freedom and can not possibly die painfully enough or soon enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no such thing as a reasonable request when someone is trying to force someone to make their own property appear the way YOU want it to.
No, not even "no broken windows" or even "no purple 10-foot lawn gnomes".Don't give me that filthy lie about how "wah, they lowered my precious property values!
" can provide even the most remote excuse.
You don't have a right to high property values.
Period.  And you know it.You, and anyone else who is less than 100\% against the city on this issue, are violently anti-freedom and cannot possibly die painfully enough or soon enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341510</id>
	<title>Re:It's their lawn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267647420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Old refrigerators and non-working cars usually have toxic/dangerous chemicals in them.  If they were sanitized and the bad stuff were removed, it'd be much nicer.  Heck, paint the harmless husks grass-green and call it an art project.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Old refrigerators and non-working cars usually have toxic/dangerous chemicals in them .
If they were sanitized and the bad stuff were removed , it 'd be much nicer .
Heck , paint the harmless husks grass-green and call it an art project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Old refrigerators and non-working cars usually have toxic/dangerous chemicals in them.
If they were sanitized and the bad stuff were removed, it'd be much nicer.
Heck, paint the harmless husks grass-green and call it an art project.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31349768</id>
	<title>Not just residents have problems with this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267607820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fought against this stuff and design for three years, on the other side as a city councillor. You'd think I'd have an easy time, being their boss and all, but when the other six councillors don't have a problem with it you don't get much movement. I did get council to tell planning to go fuck themselves when they wanted to purpose a bylaw against RVs in the front yard. I proposed an amendment to remove a requirement to build a porch on new development, because who the hell is the city to tell someone they have to have a porch. It got voted against, then planning turned around two months later to get that requirement removed because the construction industry reminded them a porch as defined in our bylaws is very, very specific (ie. traditional enclosed porch you'd find on a farmhouse or something) and it was unfair to force them to build them (no shit).</p><p>You know things are fucked when the 21 year-old is fighting against the 60 year-olds for the right to do whatever you want with your property as long as it's not a safety hazard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fought against this stuff and design for three years , on the other side as a city councillor .
You 'd think I 'd have an easy time , being their boss and all , but when the other six councillors do n't have a problem with it you do n't get much movement .
I did get council to tell planning to go fuck themselves when they wanted to purpose a bylaw against RVs in the front yard .
I proposed an amendment to remove a requirement to build a porch on new development , because who the hell is the city to tell someone they have to have a porch .
It got voted against , then planning turned around two months later to get that requirement removed because the construction industry reminded them a porch as defined in our bylaws is very , very specific ( ie .
traditional enclosed porch you 'd find on a farmhouse or something ) and it was unfair to force them to build them ( no shit ) .You know things are fucked when the 21 year-old is fighting against the 60 year-olds for the right to do whatever you want with your property as long as it 's not a safety hazard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fought against this stuff and design for three years, on the other side as a city councillor.
You'd think I'd have an easy time, being their boss and all, but when the other six councillors don't have a problem with it you don't get much movement.
I did get council to tell planning to go fuck themselves when they wanted to purpose a bylaw against RVs in the front yard.
I proposed an amendment to remove a requirement to build a porch on new development, because who the hell is the city to tell someone they have to have a porch.
It got voted against, then planning turned around two months later to get that requirement removed because the construction industry reminded them a porch as defined in our bylaws is very, very specific (ie.
traditional enclosed porch you'd find on a farmhouse or something) and it was unfair to force them to build them (no shit).You know things are fucked when the 21 year-old is fighting against the 60 year-olds for the right to do whatever you want with your property as long as it's not a safety hazard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31349288</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267648800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They *should* care because it lowers their own property values. Whether the law should demand a resident to care about the property values of his/her neighbors is a different matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They * should * care because it lowers their own property values .
Whether the law should demand a resident to care about the property values of his/her neighbors is a different matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They *should* care because it lowers their own property values.
Whether the law should demand a resident to care about the property values of his/her neighbors is a different matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345816</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>Daniel\_Staal</author>
	<datestamp>1267632960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Home values are computed based on sales of 'comparable' homes in the area.  Houses are often comparable to their neighbors homes.</p><p>If your home value goes down, that just lowered the value of all 'comparable' homes in the area.  Which includes the neighbors.  (This is a reason some care.  I don't necessarily agree with it.)</p><p>Oh, and for the Taliban preventing women wearing jeans: They prevent it because they <em>do</em> like to see it, and that is a temptation to men.  (Which men cannot be expected to handle on their own.)  So therefore to avoid leading men into sin, women should cover up.</p><p>Both reasoning make about the same amount of sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Home values are computed based on sales of 'comparable ' homes in the area .
Houses are often comparable to their neighbors homes.If your home value goes down , that just lowered the value of all 'comparable ' homes in the area .
Which includes the neighbors .
( This is a reason some care .
I do n't necessarily agree with it .
) Oh , and for the Taliban preventing women wearing jeans : They prevent it because they do like to see it , and that is a temptation to men .
( Which men can not be expected to handle on their own .
) So therefore to avoid leading men into sin , women should cover up.Both reasoning make about the same amount of sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Home values are computed based on sales of 'comparable' homes in the area.
Houses are often comparable to their neighbors homes.If your home value goes down, that just lowered the value of all 'comparable' homes in the area.
Which includes the neighbors.
(This is a reason some care.
I don't necessarily agree with it.
)Oh, and for the Taliban preventing women wearing jeans: They prevent it because they do like to see it, and that is a temptation to men.
(Which men cannot be expected to handle on their own.
)  So therefore to avoid leading men into sin, women should cover up.Both reasoning make about the same amount of sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343196</id>
	<title>Re:electrolytes</title>
	<author>Brazilian Geek</author>
	<datestamp>1267618500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how long it'll take until someone posts the xkcd comic that seems obligatory everyone makes a comment from Idiocracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how long it 'll take until someone posts the xkcd comic that seems obligatory everyone makes a comment from Idiocracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how long it'll take until someone posts the xkcd comic that seems obligatory everyone makes a comment from Idiocracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344160</id>
	<title>Re:It's their lawn</title>
	<author>elnyka</author>
	<datestamp>1267625520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So If I want to decorate my dead lawn with old refrigerators and non-working cars your okay with that?</p></div><p>No because that type of metal garbage does constitute a danger to your neighbors. </p><p>

I see where  both of you are going with your arguments. Your argument, which is valid, is that people should not do things that will reasonable can cause a depreciation of others people properties. This I could agree.</p><p>

But the problem with this country is that this argument is stretched to the point that you no longer have a right to do things that should be reasonable to do with your own property (for example, taking all the grass out and replacing it with wood chips.) Or painting your house different, or putting an antenna, or hanging an old tire, painted in pink, off a tree branch to make it as a swing for your kids... in your own freaking backyard.</p><p>

Try to open up a restaurant in your own house (which I saw a lot in Tokyo, a very urbane and clean city), even if you have the wherewithal and engineering/hygienic/legal know-hows and you'll get your ass handed because we have this notion of non-commercial zones (one of the main culprits of urban sprawl.) Or not even a restaurant, but, say, a sign that says you are a lawyer or a public notary or something, good luck with that. Try hanging your clothes to dry in your backyard - the sensible, eco-friendly thing to do, and you'll get labeled a lot of non-glamorous (and sometimes near-racist) epitaphs. </p><p>

So you have one sensible ideal (don't do things in your house that will have a negative impact in your neighbor's properties) getting extended into stupid constrains on your own property, even to the detriment to the environment and just plain common sense.</p><p>

Slogans, arrogance, classicism and incompetent bureaucracy trumps reason.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So If I want to decorate my dead lawn with old refrigerators and non-working cars your okay with that ? No because that type of metal garbage does constitute a danger to your neighbors .
I see where both of you are going with your arguments .
Your argument , which is valid , is that people should not do things that will reasonable can cause a depreciation of others people properties .
This I could agree .
But the problem with this country is that this argument is stretched to the point that you no longer have a right to do things that should be reasonable to do with your own property ( for example , taking all the grass out and replacing it with wood chips .
) Or painting your house different , or putting an antenna , or hanging an old tire , painted in pink , off a tree branch to make it as a swing for your kids... in your own freaking backyard .
Try to open up a restaurant in your own house ( which I saw a lot in Tokyo , a very urbane and clean city ) , even if you have the wherewithal and engineering/hygienic/legal know-hows and you 'll get your ass handed because we have this notion of non-commercial zones ( one of the main culprits of urban sprawl .
) Or not even a restaurant , but , say , a sign that says you are a lawyer or a public notary or something , good luck with that .
Try hanging your clothes to dry in your backyard - the sensible , eco-friendly thing to do , and you 'll get labeled a lot of non-glamorous ( and sometimes near-racist ) epitaphs .
So you have one sensible ideal ( do n't do things in your house that will have a negative impact in your neighbor 's properties ) getting extended into stupid constrains on your own property , even to the detriment to the environment and just plain common sense .
Slogans , arrogance , classicism and incompetent bureaucracy trumps reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So If I want to decorate my dead lawn with old refrigerators and non-working cars your okay with that?No because that type of metal garbage does constitute a danger to your neighbors.
I see where  both of you are going with your arguments.
Your argument, which is valid, is that people should not do things that will reasonable can cause a depreciation of others people properties.
This I could agree.
But the problem with this country is that this argument is stretched to the point that you no longer have a right to do things that should be reasonable to do with your own property (for example, taking all the grass out and replacing it with wood chips.
) Or painting your house different, or putting an antenna, or hanging an old tire, painted in pink, off a tree branch to make it as a swing for your kids... in your own freaking backyard.
Try to open up a restaurant in your own house (which I saw a lot in Tokyo, a very urbane and clean city), even if you have the wherewithal and engineering/hygienic/legal know-hows and you'll get your ass handed because we have this notion of non-commercial zones (one of the main culprits of urban sprawl.
) Or not even a restaurant, but, say, a sign that says you are a lawyer or a public notary or something, good luck with that.
Try hanging your clothes to dry in your backyard - the sensible, eco-friendly thing to do, and you'll get labeled a lot of non-glamorous (and sometimes near-racist) epitaphs.
So you have one sensible ideal (don't do things in your house that will have a negative impact in your neighbor's properties) getting extended into stupid constrains on your own property, even to the detriment to the environment and just plain common sense.
Slogans, arrogance, classicism and incompetent bureaucracy trumps reason.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31352672</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1267621980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most people don't live in a house for that long: 5-10 years or so.  People change jobs now and then, and that frequently requires them to relocate.  If you spend $250k for a house, and some people move in next to you and fill their yards with dead cars and dog shit, you'll never find someone to buy your house for $250k (let's assume we're in a normal realty market for a moment), or anywhere near that.  You'd have to take a huge loss, and you'd still have a hard time selling it, and meanwhile your new job expects you to move your butt to your new city and start working by a certain date.</p><p>If people kept houses in their families for generations like they did long ago, it wouldn't be a big deal, but things have changed a lot since then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people do n't live in a house for that long : 5-10 years or so .
People change jobs now and then , and that frequently requires them to relocate .
If you spend $ 250k for a house , and some people move in next to you and fill their yards with dead cars and dog shit , you 'll never find someone to buy your house for $ 250k ( let 's assume we 're in a normal realty market for a moment ) , or anywhere near that .
You 'd have to take a huge loss , and you 'd still have a hard time selling it , and meanwhile your new job expects you to move your butt to your new city and start working by a certain date.If people kept houses in their families for generations like they did long ago , it would n't be a big deal , but things have changed a lot since then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people don't live in a house for that long: 5-10 years or so.
People change jobs now and then, and that frequently requires them to relocate.
If you spend $250k for a house, and some people move in next to you and fill their yards with dead cars and dog shit, you'll never find someone to buy your house for $250k (let's assume we're in a normal realty market for a moment), or anywhere near that.
You'd have to take a huge loss, and you'd still have a hard time selling it, and meanwhile your new job expects you to move your butt to your new city and start working by a certain date.If people kept houses in their families for generations like they did long ago, it wouldn't be a big deal, but things have changed a lot since then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341062</id>
	<title>Revenue Streams</title>
	<author>stimpleton</author>
	<datestamp>1267556760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTFA: <i>"Meanwhile, the couple said they had reduced their water usage from 299,221 gallons in 2007 to 58,348 gallons in 2009."</i> <br> <br>
Hmm, I wonder if this is to do with revenue from water supply.<br> <br>
In my town, water metering is being implemented over time. As infrastructure is serviced, new metering tech in being roled out. At some point we will have to pay when the scheme is finalized.<br> <br>Coincidentily, the permit fees for watertanks has been put up, to the point it is like any of the "green" decisions: high capital outlay(factoring in the fees) to the the point one asks if financial return in 10 years is worth it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA : " Meanwhile , the couple said they had reduced their water usage from 299,221 gallons in 2007 to 58,348 gallons in 2009 .
" Hmm , I wonder if this is to do with revenue from water supply .
In my town , water metering is being implemented over time .
As infrastructure is serviced , new metering tech in being roled out .
At some point we will have to pay when the scheme is finalized .
Coincidentily , the permit fees for watertanks has been put up , to the point it is like any of the " green " decisions : high capital outlay ( factoring in the fees ) to the the point one asks if financial return in 10 years is worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFA: "Meanwhile, the couple said they had reduced their water usage from 299,221 gallons in 2007 to 58,348 gallons in 2009.
"  
Hmm, I wonder if this is to do with revenue from water supply.
In my town, water metering is being implemented over time.
As infrastructure is serviced, new metering tech in being roled out.
At some point we will have to pay when the scheme is finalized.
Coincidentily, the permit fees for watertanks has been put up, to the point it is like any of the "green" decisions: high capital outlay(factoring in the fees) to the the point one asks if financial return in 10 years is worth it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346160</id>
	<title>Las Vegas</title>
	<author>srobert</author>
	<datestamp>1267634580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Orange County prosecutes you for putting in desert landscaping? Wow! Too bad they didn't live in Las Vegas. The Southern Nevada Water Authority pays customers $1.50 per square foot to convert lawns to desert landscaping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Orange County prosecutes you for putting in desert landscaping ?
Wow ! Too bad they did n't live in Las Vegas .
The Southern Nevada Water Authority pays customers $ 1.50 per square foot to convert lawns to desert landscaping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Orange County prosecutes you for putting in desert landscaping?
Wow! Too bad they didn't live in Las Vegas.
The Southern Nevada Water Authority pays customers $1.50 per square foot to convert lawns to desert landscaping.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343126</id>
	<title>Re:It's their lawn</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1267617960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a court case about that in Mole Valley, England, yesterday, and the court said he was free to do that.</p><p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/8545119.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/8545119.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a court case about that in Mole Valley , England , yesterday , and the court said he was free to do that.http : //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/8545119.stm [ bbc.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a court case about that in Mole Valley, England, yesterday, and the court said he was free to do that.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/8545119.stm [bbc.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346598</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267636500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because exterior changes to your neighbor's home often have negative externalities. That is, they have costs not incurred by the person who pays for the changes.</p></div><p>I would have an easier time believing you if you would have, you know, actually <i>mentioned</i> some of these "externalities".</p><p>And if your entire premise is "neighbourhood property values", you've already lost, because if a property value declines, it hits the homeowner much more than his/her neighbors, and so is not an externality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because exterior changes to your neighbor 's home often have negative externalities .
That is , they have costs not incurred by the person who pays for the changes.I would have an easier time believing you if you would have , you know , actually mentioned some of these " externalities " .And if your entire premise is " neighbourhood property values " , you 've already lost , because if a property value declines , it hits the homeowner much more than his/her neighbors , and so is not an externality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because exterior changes to your neighbor's home often have negative externalities.
That is, they have costs not incurred by the person who pays for the changes.I would have an easier time believing you if you would have, you know, actually mentioned some of these "externalities".And if your entire premise is "neighbourhood property values", you've already lost, because if a property value declines, it hits the homeowner much more than his/her neighbors, and so is not an externality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347668</id>
	<title>On the flip side</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267640820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I move into a subdivision and I agree to the HOA rules. I would expect everyone else who agreed to them to abide by them as well. If you don't agree to the rules, don't move in. Or if you've already moved in and you change your mind about agreeing with the rules move out. That's common courtesy to your neighbors which I think the U.S. is losing rapdily.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I move into a subdivision and I agree to the HOA rules .
I would expect everyone else who agreed to them to abide by them as well .
If you do n't agree to the rules , do n't move in .
Or if you 've already moved in and you change your mind about agreeing with the rules move out .
That 's common courtesy to your neighbors which I think the U.S. is losing rapdily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I move into a subdivision and I agree to the HOA rules.
I would expect everyone else who agreed to them to abide by them as well.
If you don't agree to the rules, don't move in.
Or if you've already moved in and you change your mind about agreeing with the rules move out.
That's common courtesy to your neighbors which I think the U.S. is losing rapdily.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346594</id>
	<title>Government breaks it, then tries to fix it</title>
	<author>AthleteMusicianNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1267636500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i> violating several city laws that require that 40\% of residential yards to be landscaped predominantly with live plants </i>

This is a prime example of how government creates a problem (the water shortage) and then claims to try to "save us".  They have been crying water shortage since the 80's (and probably before then)  then turn off the water in Huron, force us to use low flow toilets(that don't even work!) and shower heads, and refuse to build desalinization plants.  As Dianne Feinstein would have us believe, "It's a complicated issue".  That or she's a moron.</htmltext>
<tokenext>violating several city laws that require that 40 \ % of residential yards to be landscaped predominantly with live plants This is a prime example of how government creates a problem ( the water shortage ) and then claims to try to " save us " .
They have been crying water shortage since the 80 's ( and probably before then ) then turn off the water in Huron , force us to use low flow toilets ( that do n't even work !
) and shower heads , and refuse to build desalinization plants .
As Dianne Feinstein would have us believe , " It 's a complicated issue " .
That or she 's a moron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> violating several city laws that require that 40\% of residential yards to be landscaped predominantly with live plants 

This is a prime example of how government creates a problem (the water shortage) and then claims to try to "save us".
They have been crying water shortage since the 80's (and probably before then)  then turn off the water in Huron, force us to use low flow toilets(that don't even work!
) and shower heads, and refuse to build desalinization plants.
As Dianne Feinstein would have us believe, "It's a complicated issue".
That or she's a moron.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342142</id>
	<title>Re:No one is wrong here...</title>
	<author>societyofrobots</author>
	<datestamp>1267609080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To follow the law, plant 40\% of it with grass, and leave the other 60\% with barren dirt.</p><p>After all, the law is not about an attractive lawn, just 40\% grass coverage. No?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To follow the law , plant 40 \ % of it with grass , and leave the other 60 \ % with barren dirt.After all , the law is not about an attractive lawn , just 40 \ % grass coverage .
No ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To follow the law, plant 40\% of it with grass, and leave the other 60\% with barren dirt.After all, the law is not about an attractive lawn, just 40\% grass coverage.
No?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341556</id>
	<title>Re:Typical California</title>
	<author>danlock4</author>
	<datestamp>1267647840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it's just that long-forgotten laws still have validity despite the enormous amounts of evidence showing that these laws aren't really relevant or important any longer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's just that long-forgotten laws still have validity despite the enormous amounts of evidence showing that these laws are n't really relevant or important any longer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's just that long-forgotten laws still have validity despite the enormous amounts of evidence showing that these laws aren't really relevant or important any longer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340970</id>
	<title>It's not entirely their own</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267556100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I purchased my property there was a bit in the legal docs about keeping the lawn in good shape and not building any other permanent structure on my property (no, I am not allowed to expand).  Also, any natural resources found on my property belongs to the city.  But, I don't mind these stipulations.  I got a nice house for little cost and I know my neighbors will continue to have nice homes also.  Based on the summary, the penalties are fairly slim I'd say (they will never get the jail time unless they piss on the court, and $1000 is a reasonable sum).  However, if the Has are trying to appease the city by planting bushes and are not skipping court then the court should rule in their favor, IMO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I purchased my property there was a bit in the legal docs about keeping the lawn in good shape and not building any other permanent structure on my property ( no , I am not allowed to expand ) .
Also , any natural resources found on my property belongs to the city .
But , I do n't mind these stipulations .
I got a nice house for little cost and I know my neighbors will continue to have nice homes also .
Based on the summary , the penalties are fairly slim I 'd say ( they will never get the jail time unless they piss on the court , and $ 1000 is a reasonable sum ) .
However , if the Has are trying to appease the city by planting bushes and are not skipping court then the court should rule in their favor , IMO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I purchased my property there was a bit in the legal docs about keeping the lawn in good shape and not building any other permanent structure on my property (no, I am not allowed to expand).
Also, any natural resources found on my property belongs to the city.
But, I don't mind these stipulations.
I got a nice house for little cost and I know my neighbors will continue to have nice homes also.
Based on the summary, the penalties are fairly slim I'd say (they will never get the jail time unless they piss on the court, and $1000 is a reasonable sum).
However, if the Has are trying to appease the city by planting bushes and are not skipping court then the court should rule in their favor, IMO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345996</id>
	<title>Re:No one is wrong here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267633800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to the wonderful world of centralized and political municipal and city planning, where the looks of your property is everyones business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to the wonderful world of centralized and political municipal and city planning , where the looks of your property is everyones business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to the wonderful world of centralized and political municipal and city planning, where the looks of your property is everyones business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31349610</id>
	<title>Conservatives</title>
	<author>wh00dini</author>
	<datestamp>1267607160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, these are some of the most right-wing comments I've ever seen on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.

funny that I agree with most of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , these are some of the most right-wing comments I 've ever seen on / .
funny that I agree with most of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, these are some of the most right-wing comments I've ever seen on /.
funny that I agree with most of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31351006</id>
	<title>Re:Lone voice of reason...</title>
	<author>galvanash</author>
	<datestamp>1267613580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice Troll. No, I do NOT value my personal property over the environment - but I also do not see it as and either or thing... Unlike you, I value my social environment at least as much if not more than the physical one - they BOTH need to be healthy and functional for people to be happy.</p><p>Look, if you value the environment more than you value your neighbors right to live in a neighborhood that makes them feel comfortable, then MOVE. Your neighbors are the people who created those ordinances in the first place, did you consider the possibility that many of them LIKE them and don't see things the way you do?</p><p>I am all for seeing a group of people petitioning their city council to have these kinds of things repelled if it makes sense to the community at large - meaning go out and convince your neighbors to see things your way if you can. Ordinances are easy to change if you have the votes. But if you find your neighbors are all opposed to your world view, then maybe you should move instead of just defiantly breaking the ordinance. Just breaking the rules demonstrates nothing but contempt for the very people you are choosing to live next door to...</p><p>ps. And all this talk about "its no own else's business what I do with my own yard"... If you REALLY believe that you are the definition of anti-social (and a selfish asshole too). A neighborhood is not just a geographical location - it is more than the sum of its parts, and believe it or not a lot people CARE about their neighborhoods and how they look. I admit it may mostly about property values, but that isn't the extent of it - your front yard says a lot about you as a person, and the combination of all the lawns in a neighborhood say a lot about its residents.</p><p>I admit I do not live in an area where water is scarce. If I did, I would probably think that this ordinance wasn't a very good idea and would try to convince my neighbors to agree with me. And if I could convince enough of them then I would likely go to the city council and try to get the ordinance changed. And if I couldn't convince them and it was REALLY important to me, I would probably seriously consider moving. I would NOT, however, feel compelled to simply break the ordinance to prove how green I was - that is selfish and arrogant, which was the point I was trying to make.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice Troll .
No , I do NOT value my personal property over the environment - but I also do not see it as and either or thing... Unlike you , I value my social environment at least as much if not more than the physical one - they BOTH need to be healthy and functional for people to be happy.Look , if you value the environment more than you value your neighbors right to live in a neighborhood that makes them feel comfortable , then MOVE .
Your neighbors are the people who created those ordinances in the first place , did you consider the possibility that many of them LIKE them and do n't see things the way you do ? I am all for seeing a group of people petitioning their city council to have these kinds of things repelled if it makes sense to the community at large - meaning go out and convince your neighbors to see things your way if you can .
Ordinances are easy to change if you have the votes .
But if you find your neighbors are all opposed to your world view , then maybe you should move instead of just defiantly breaking the ordinance .
Just breaking the rules demonstrates nothing but contempt for the very people you are choosing to live next door to...ps .
And all this talk about " its no own else 's business what I do with my own yard " ... If you REALLY believe that you are the definition of anti-social ( and a selfish asshole too ) .
A neighborhood is not just a geographical location - it is more than the sum of its parts , and believe it or not a lot people CARE about their neighborhoods and how they look .
I admit it may mostly about property values , but that is n't the extent of it - your front yard says a lot about you as a person , and the combination of all the lawns in a neighborhood say a lot about its residents.I admit I do not live in an area where water is scarce .
If I did , I would probably think that this ordinance was n't a very good idea and would try to convince my neighbors to agree with me .
And if I could convince enough of them then I would likely go to the city council and try to get the ordinance changed .
And if I could n't convince them and it was REALLY important to me , I would probably seriously consider moving .
I would NOT , however , feel compelled to simply break the ordinance to prove how green I was - that is selfish and arrogant , which was the point I was trying to make .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice Troll.
No, I do NOT value my personal property over the environment - but I also do not see it as and either or thing... Unlike you, I value my social environment at least as much if not more than the physical one - they BOTH need to be healthy and functional for people to be happy.Look, if you value the environment more than you value your neighbors right to live in a neighborhood that makes them feel comfortable, then MOVE.
Your neighbors are the people who created those ordinances in the first place, did you consider the possibility that many of them LIKE them and don't see things the way you do?I am all for seeing a group of people petitioning their city council to have these kinds of things repelled if it makes sense to the community at large - meaning go out and convince your neighbors to see things your way if you can.
Ordinances are easy to change if you have the votes.
But if you find your neighbors are all opposed to your world view, then maybe you should move instead of just defiantly breaking the ordinance.
Just breaking the rules demonstrates nothing but contempt for the very people you are choosing to live next door to...ps.
And all this talk about "its no own else's business what I do with my own yard"... If you REALLY believe that you are the definition of anti-social (and a selfish asshole too).
A neighborhood is not just a geographical location - it is more than the sum of its parts, and believe it or not a lot people CARE about their neighborhoods and how they look.
I admit it may mostly about property values, but that isn't the extent of it - your front yard says a lot about you as a person, and the combination of all the lawns in a neighborhood say a lot about its residents.I admit I do not live in an area where water is scarce.
If I did, I would probably think that this ordinance wasn't a very good idea and would try to convince my neighbors to agree with me.
And if I could convince enough of them then I would likely go to the city council and try to get the ordinance changed.
And if I couldn't convince them and it was REALLY important to me, I would probably seriously consider moving.
I would NOT, however, feel compelled to simply break the ordinance to prove how green I was - that is selfish and arrogant, which was the point I was trying to make.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343720</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>Itchyeyes</author>
	<datestamp>1267622640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is it your neighbor's responsibility to use their property in a way they dislike in order to bolster your property values?</p></div><p>Because exterior changes to your neighbor's home often have negative externalities.  That is, they have costs not incurred by the person who pays for the changes.  It's the same logic that underlies why we regulate things like water pollution and public dumping.  The point of regulating these things is not to bolster property values, but to make sure that the true cost on society of such changes, rather than just the cost to the homeowner, is more accurately reflected, and therefore properly weighed against the benefits which are generally enjoyed only be the homeowner.</p><p>That being said, many people enforcing and making these kinds of laws often get carried away and forget the underlying reason for them, as seems to be the case here.  So instead of properly weight the negative externalities, on property value, against the positive externalities of the Ha's reduced water usage (or, as was recently the case in my state, reduced electricity use when a couple decided to start hang drying their clothes in their backyard), we have some bureaucrat rubber stamping things to the letter of the law.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it your neighbor 's responsibility to use their property in a way they dislike in order to bolster your property values ? Because exterior changes to your neighbor 's home often have negative externalities .
That is , they have costs not incurred by the person who pays for the changes .
It 's the same logic that underlies why we regulate things like water pollution and public dumping .
The point of regulating these things is not to bolster property values , but to make sure that the true cost on society of such changes , rather than just the cost to the homeowner , is more accurately reflected , and therefore properly weighed against the benefits which are generally enjoyed only be the homeowner.That being said , many people enforcing and making these kinds of laws often get carried away and forget the underlying reason for them , as seems to be the case here .
So instead of properly weight the negative externalities , on property value , against the positive externalities of the Ha 's reduced water usage ( or , as was recently the case in my state , reduced electricity use when a couple decided to start hang drying their clothes in their backyard ) , we have some bureaucrat rubber stamping things to the letter of the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it your neighbor's responsibility to use their property in a way they dislike in order to bolster your property values?Because exterior changes to your neighbor's home often have negative externalities.
That is, they have costs not incurred by the person who pays for the changes.
It's the same logic that underlies why we regulate things like water pollution and public dumping.
The point of regulating these things is not to bolster property values, but to make sure that the true cost on society of such changes, rather than just the cost to the homeowner, is more accurately reflected, and therefore properly weighed against the benefits which are generally enjoyed only be the homeowner.That being said, many people enforcing and making these kinds of laws often get carried away and forget the underlying reason for them, as seems to be the case here.
So instead of properly weight the negative externalities, on property value, against the positive externalities of the Ha's reduced water usage (or, as was recently the case in my state, reduced electricity use when a couple decided to start hang drying their clothes in their backyard), we have some bureaucrat rubber stamping things to the letter of the law.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341428</id>
	<title>OC Officials will lose - they don't know yet but</title>
	<author>layer3switch</author>
	<datestamp>1267646580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ha always gets the last laugh.  Ha!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha always gets the last laugh .
Ha !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha always gets the last laugh.
Ha!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342950</id>
	<title>Re:I lived there for better than a dozen years...</title>
	<author>sonamchauhan</author>
	<datestamp>1267616460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, a lot of these chemicals cause harm that wasn't recognized in the past.</p><p>Besides Silicon valley is happy to live in Cal.</p><p>Where are most chip fabs these days?</p><p>One thing I recall from Cal is massive traffic jams and rude people  (around Novato)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , a lot of these chemicals cause harm that was n't recognized in the past.Besides Silicon valley is happy to live in Cal.Where are most chip fabs these days ? One thing I recall from Cal is massive traffic jams and rude people ( around Novato )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, a lot of these chemicals cause harm that wasn't recognized in the past.Besides Silicon valley is happy to live in Cal.Where are most chip fabs these days?One thing I recall from Cal is massive traffic jams and rude people  (around Novato)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341202</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb Government Abuse of Power</title>
	<author>Surt</author>
	<datestamp>1267558080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why anyone would have bought into such a community in the first place escapes me.  It was #1 on the list of dead to me properties when I consulted a real estate agent.  Who doesn't think that an HOA is just an invitation to abuse, and why would you pay MORE to pay more for an HOA?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why anyone would have bought into such a community in the first place escapes me .
It was # 1 on the list of dead to me properties when I consulted a real estate agent .
Who does n't think that an HOA is just an invitation to abuse , and why would you pay MORE to pay more for an HOA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why anyone would have bought into such a community in the first place escapes me.
It was #1 on the list of dead to me properties when I consulted a real estate agent.
Who doesn't think that an HOA is just an invitation to abuse, and why would you pay MORE to pay more for an HOA?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31490800</id>
	<title>Re:Lone voice of reason...</title>
	<author>Dthief</author>
	<datestamp>1268664120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Doing things like this is frankly makes you look like a child acting out... "The environment is more important than these stupid rules and there are just too many people that don't care about the environment so I will defy them in a effort to get the rules changed. So there!"</p></div><p>I agree that convincing the people around you (or moving to somewhere else which doesnt have these looney rules) is a better route, but whats "childish" about non-violent civil disobedience?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Doing things like this is frankly makes you look like a child acting out... " The environment is more important than these stupid rules and there are just too many people that do n't care about the environment so I will defy them in a effort to get the rules changed .
So there !
" I agree that convincing the people around you ( or moving to somewhere else which doesnt have these looney rules ) is a better route , but whats " childish " about non-violent civil disobedience ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doing things like this is frankly makes you look like a child acting out... "The environment is more important than these stupid rules and there are just too many people that don't care about the environment so I will defy them in a effort to get the rules changed.
So there!
"I agree that convincing the people around you (or moving to somewhere else which doesnt have these looney rules) is a better route, but whats "childish" about non-violent civil disobedience?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340942</id>
	<title>Typical California</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267555800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you cross the border into the state you can toss logic, responsibility, decency and common sense in the toilet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you cross the border into the state you can toss logic , responsibility , decency and common sense in the toilet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you cross the border into the state you can toss logic, responsibility, decency and common sense in the toilet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344328</id>
	<title>Re:Lone voice of reason...</title>
	<author>sckeener</author>
	<datestamp>1267626420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>yes, but who is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas\_Shrugged" title="wikipedia.org">John Galt?</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>yes , but who is John Galt ?
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes, but who is John Galt?
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346618</id>
	<title>Re:No one is wrong here...</title>
	<author>lymond01</author>
	<datestamp>1267636620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The correct outcome is for the law to be changed.</i></p><p>I see your point -- in order for a law to be changed, someone has to challenge it.  But just challenging it because <i>you</i> think it's unjust, doesn't mean the outcome is set.  These folks are doing the right thing by choosing a low water landscaping technique and the city should applaud them.  But turning your yard into a dirt lot is an eyesore and yes, what your neighbors think DOES matter.  If you want to go live in a bubble, by all means do so -- I believe there's some space on the Moon, though I think supplies are limited.</p><p>It's a multi-player game, people.  Accept that fact, and life will make a heap more sense.  All they need to do is use some proper desert landscaping -- shrubs, rocks, brick...hell even add a water feature that recycles water.  But making your yard a dustbowl in the summer and a pool of mud in the winter isn't acceptable by anyone's standards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The correct outcome is for the law to be changed.I see your point -- in order for a law to be changed , someone has to challenge it .
But just challenging it because you think it 's unjust , does n't mean the outcome is set .
These folks are doing the right thing by choosing a low water landscaping technique and the city should applaud them .
But turning your yard into a dirt lot is an eyesore and yes , what your neighbors think DOES matter .
If you want to go live in a bubble , by all means do so -- I believe there 's some space on the Moon , though I think supplies are limited.It 's a multi-player game , people .
Accept that fact , and life will make a heap more sense .
All they need to do is use some proper desert landscaping -- shrubs , rocks , brick...hell even add a water feature that recycles water .
But making your yard a dustbowl in the summer and a pool of mud in the winter is n't acceptable by anyone 's standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The correct outcome is for the law to be changed.I see your point -- in order for a law to be changed, someone has to challenge it.
But just challenging it because you think it's unjust, doesn't mean the outcome is set.
These folks are doing the right thing by choosing a low water landscaping technique and the city should applaud them.
But turning your yard into a dirt lot is an eyesore and yes, what your neighbors think DOES matter.
If you want to go live in a bubble, by all means do so -- I believe there's some space on the Moon, though I think supplies are limited.It's a multi-player game, people.
Accept that fact, and life will make a heap more sense.
All they need to do is use some proper desert landscaping -- shrubs, rocks, brick...hell even add a water feature that recycles water.
But making your yard a dustbowl in the summer and a pool of mud in the winter isn't acceptable by anyone's standards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31349236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31392704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31350256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31372496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31349166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31362920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31349990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31348488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31348264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341256
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343250
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31352672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31349006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31351006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31349114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31352628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31490800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31348208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31349288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_0018217_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31350054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341026
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347190
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341364
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31348264
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31349114
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31352672
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343852
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345816
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31349288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341164
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341808
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31352628
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345530
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342230
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341140
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341536
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346790
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347668
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345422
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31348208
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341146
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344852
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345174
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341466
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31349236
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347458
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345792
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343720
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346598
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345866
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344112
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345254
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31372496
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31349990
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31362920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341384
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340998
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344160
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341560
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344258
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341256
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341420
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31392704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341304
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342464
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342584
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31351006
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31490800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343054
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341068
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31349166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31343196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340908
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31340944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31350054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31345996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31348488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31350256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_0018217.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31341024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31342412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31347634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31349006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31346514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_0018217.31344536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
