<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_12_185227</id>
	<title>China Warns Google To Obey Or Leave</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1268420640000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>suraj.sun writes with this snippet from an Associated Press report:
<i>"China's top Internet regulator insisted Friday that <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gKrY51vO2V86xiICf35Q05J0FIEAD9ED1NF80">Google must obey its laws or 'pay the consequences,'</a> giving no sign of a possible compromise in their dispute over censorship and hacking. 'If you want to do something that disobeys Chinese law and regulations, you are unfriendly, you are irresponsible and you will have to pay the consequences,' Li Yizhong, the minister of Industry and Information Technology, said on the sidelines of China's annual legislature. ... 'Whether they leave or not is up to them,' Li said. 'But if they leave, China's Internet market is still going to develop.' ... Li insisted the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people. 'If there is information that harms stability or the people, of course we will have to block it,' he said."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>suraj.sun writes with this snippet from an Associated Press report : " China 's top Internet regulator insisted Friday that Google must obey its laws or 'pay the consequences, ' giving no sign of a possible compromise in their dispute over censorship and hacking .
'If you want to do something that disobeys Chinese law and regulations , you are unfriendly , you are irresponsible and you will have to pay the consequences, ' Li Yizhong , the minister of Industry and Information Technology , said on the sidelines of China 's annual legislature .
... 'Whether they leave or not is up to them, ' Li said .
'But if they leave , China 's Internet market is still going to develop .
' ... Li insisted the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people .
'If there is information that harms stability or the people , of course we will have to block it, ' he said .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suraj.sun writes with this snippet from an Associated Press report:
"China's top Internet regulator insisted Friday that Google must obey its laws or 'pay the consequences,' giving no sign of a possible compromise in their dispute over censorship and hacking.
'If you want to do something that disobeys Chinese law and regulations, you are unfriendly, you are irresponsible and you will have to pay the consequences,' Li Yizhong, the minister of Industry and Information Technology, said on the sidelines of China's annual legislature.
... 'Whether they leave or not is up to them,' Li said.
'But if they leave, China's Internet market is still going to develop.
' ... Li insisted the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people.
'If there is information that harms stability or the people, of course we will have to block it,' he said.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455962</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit.</title>
	<author>Almonday</author>
	<datestamp>1268386080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>It's not even the Central party they'd be criticizing; many Chinese adore Grandpa Hu and Grandpa Wen. The local party officials are another thing altogether, especially in rural areas.</em> <br> <br>

Interesting that we have (almost) the reverse attitude here in the states:  Everyone hates Congress, <a href="http://www.scoopdaily.com/2009/03/13/despite-hating-congress-americans-love-their-congressmen/" title="scoopdaily.com" rel="nofollow">but our own local representatives are just peachy.</a> [scoopdaily.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not even the Central party they 'd be criticizing ; many Chinese adore Grandpa Hu and Grandpa Wen .
The local party officials are another thing altogether , especially in rural areas .
Interesting that we have ( almost ) the reverse attitude here in the states : Everyone hates Congress , but our own local representatives are just peachy .
[ scoopdaily.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not even the Central party they'd be criticizing; many Chinese adore Grandpa Hu and Grandpa Wen.
The local party officials are another thing altogether, especially in rural areas.
Interesting that we have (almost) the reverse attitude here in the states:  Everyone hates Congress, but our own local representatives are just peachy.
[scoopdaily.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455894</id>
	<title>Re:Li is Right.</title>
	<author>Knara</author>
	<datestamp>1268385720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The farmers I talked to in Shandong and Jilin also agreed- they know they're getting shafted in comparison to urban dwellers, but they're still doing better than at any time in history, and would rather not lose their chance at a new fridge, air conditioning, and a TV in return for some abstract ideas about freedom to criticize the government.</p></div><p>While you have some insightful points (and your comment fits well with what I understand about Chinese society via the Chinese friends I hung out a lot with in college), the fallacy lay in the fact that in a year or two, those farmers might be relocated because their entire village/town is being razed for a public works project.
</p><p>The main issue with the current situation is that the only method of change away from the paradigm the government has chosen *will be* civil strife.  It's only a matter of time.  And if there's one thing history has taught us about the Chinese, its that when they decide to go all strife-y, they go in whole hog.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The farmers I talked to in Shandong and Jilin also agreed- they know they 're getting shafted in comparison to urban dwellers , but they 're still doing better than at any time in history , and would rather not lose their chance at a new fridge , air conditioning , and a TV in return for some abstract ideas about freedom to criticize the government.While you have some insightful points ( and your comment fits well with what I understand about Chinese society via the Chinese friends I hung out a lot with in college ) , the fallacy lay in the fact that in a year or two , those farmers might be relocated because their entire village/town is being razed for a public works project .
The main issue with the current situation is that the only method of change away from the paradigm the government has chosen * will be * civil strife .
It 's only a matter of time .
And if there 's one thing history has taught us about the Chinese , its that when they decide to go all strife-y , they go in whole hog .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The farmers I talked to in Shandong and Jilin also agreed- they know they're getting shafted in comparison to urban dwellers, but they're still doing better than at any time in history, and would rather not lose their chance at a new fridge, air conditioning, and a TV in return for some abstract ideas about freedom to criticize the government.While you have some insightful points (and your comment fits well with what I understand about Chinese society via the Chinese friends I hung out a lot with in college), the fallacy lay in the fact that in a year or two, those farmers might be relocated because their entire village/town is being razed for a public works project.
The main issue with the current situation is that the only method of change away from the paradigm the government has chosen *will be* civil strife.
It's only a matter of time.
And if there's one thing history has taught us about the Chinese, its that when they decide to go all strife-y, they go in whole hog.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31460390</id>
	<title>Re:Oh really?</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1268406360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Information yearns to be free.<br><br>Don't anthropomorphize information.  It hates that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Information yearns to be free.Do n't anthropomorphize information .
It hates that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Information yearns to be free.Don't anthropomorphize information.
It hates that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454938</id>
	<title>Like China?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268424960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anytime some dumbass talks about censoring for your own good, like Australia or New Zealand, people should use this quote. Like China?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anytime some dumbass talks about censoring for your own good , like Australia or New Zealand , people should use this quote .
Like China ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anytime some dumbass talks about censoring for your own good, like Australia or New Zealand, people should use this quote.
Like China?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31461916</id>
	<title>Ubiquitous darknet is an oxymoron.</title>
	<author>AzuMao</author>
	<datestamp>1268420340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
   </htmltext>
<tokenext></tokentext>
<sentencetext>
   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455996</id>
	<title>Re:Game of Chicken</title>
	<author>hufter</author>
	<datestamp>1268386200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If google backs down on this, It's going to lose reputation everywhere, including China. So it looks like it's going to be goodbye china for them. They may be back when the dust has settled.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If google backs down on this , It 's going to lose reputation everywhere , including China .
So it looks like it 's going to be goodbye china for them .
They may be back when the dust has settled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If google backs down on this, It's going to lose reputation everywhere, including China.
So it looks like it's going to be goodbye china for them.
They may be back when the dust has settled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456080</id>
	<title>Re:Governments are the enemy of its people.</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1268386560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama is trying to help the American people?  ORLY?</p><p>Health care reform: he is against single payer and against public option.  He is against people buying into Medicare from any age at cost (at cost of providing Medicare as insurance).  He is against importation of cheaper drugs from other countries, like Canada.  He allows insurance companies to raise premiums all they want, as long as they give him these ephemeral 90billion over 10 years, which they have already reclaimed through rising cost.</p><p>Financial reform: he is against installing regulations against derivative markets.  He is against reform of the Fed and even will not support audit of the fed.  He holds position that there are 'too big to fail' financial institutions that need to be saved at all costs.  He listens to Rahm Emanuel, which is evil in itself, the Obama's Dick Cheney.</p><p>Gitmo: did he close it?  Did he stop the Patriot Act?  Did he return Americans their lost amendment rights?  Habeas corpus, what ever happen to that?  Will the 9/11 attackers be tried on the ground where the committed the attack, as the US law prescribes?</p><p>You show me a promise, I'll tell you how it was broken.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama is trying to help the American people ?
ORLY ? Health care reform : he is against single payer and against public option .
He is against people buying into Medicare from any age at cost ( at cost of providing Medicare as insurance ) .
He is against importation of cheaper drugs from other countries , like Canada .
He allows insurance companies to raise premiums all they want , as long as they give him these ephemeral 90billion over 10 years , which they have already reclaimed through rising cost.Financial reform : he is against installing regulations against derivative markets .
He is against reform of the Fed and even will not support audit of the fed .
He holds position that there are 'too big to fail ' financial institutions that need to be saved at all costs .
He listens to Rahm Emanuel , which is evil in itself , the Obama 's Dick Cheney.Gitmo : did he close it ?
Did he stop the Patriot Act ?
Did he return Americans their lost amendment rights ?
Habeas corpus , what ever happen to that ?
Will the 9/11 attackers be tried on the ground where the committed the attack , as the US law prescribes ? You show me a promise , I 'll tell you how it was broken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama is trying to help the American people?
ORLY?Health care reform: he is against single payer and against public option.
He is against people buying into Medicare from any age at cost (at cost of providing Medicare as insurance).
He is against importation of cheaper drugs from other countries, like Canada.
He allows insurance companies to raise premiums all they want, as long as they give him these ephemeral 90billion over 10 years, which they have already reclaimed through rising cost.Financial reform: he is against installing regulations against derivative markets.
He is against reform of the Fed and even will not support audit of the fed.
He holds position that there are 'too big to fail' financial institutions that need to be saved at all costs.
He listens to Rahm Emanuel, which is evil in itself, the Obama's Dick Cheney.Gitmo: did he close it?
Did he stop the Patriot Act?
Did he return Americans their lost amendment rights?
Habeas corpus, what ever happen to that?
Will the 9/11 attackers be tried on the ground where the committed the attack, as the US law prescribes?You show me a promise, I'll tell you how it was broken.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31458642</id>
	<title>Re:The thing that pisses my off</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268397480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>is that the West thinks that the Chinese are so helpless and so ignorant that they need us to save them from their corrupt government.</p> </div><p>That's not what I think, personally (and I do consider myself a westerner culturally).</p><p>I think that, if Chinese people believe that their government is good as it is, it's not up to us to intervene - but we shouldn't be helping them, either. From <em>our</em> perspective, in light of <em>our</em> values, their government is clearly corrupt, and its actions are evil - for <em>us</em> to support it would be immoral regardless of whether it has popular support over there or not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>is that the West thinks that the Chinese are so helpless and so ignorant that they need us to save them from their corrupt government .
That 's not what I think , personally ( and I do consider myself a westerner culturally ) .I think that , if Chinese people believe that their government is good as it is , it 's not up to us to intervene - but we should n't be helping them , either .
From our perspective , in light of our values , their government is clearly corrupt , and its actions are evil - for us to support it would be immoral regardless of whether it has popular support over there or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is that the West thinks that the Chinese are so helpless and so ignorant that they need us to save them from their corrupt government.
That's not what I think, personally (and I do consider myself a westerner culturally).I think that, if Chinese people believe that their government is good as it is, it's not up to us to intervene - but we shouldn't be helping them, either.
From our perspective, in light of our values, their government is clearly corrupt, and its actions are evil - for us to support it would be immoral regardless of whether it has popular support over there or not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454798</id>
	<title>Game of Chicken</title>
	<author>VoiceInTheDesert</author>
	<datestamp>1268424420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The question is will Google jump off the tracks before the China train hits them.
<br>
<br>
I really don't know who would be more hurt by this. On one hand, Google provides huge resources to China, but on the other hand...google surely gets a lot of revenue from such a huge market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is will Google jump off the tracks before the China train hits them .
I really do n't know who would be more hurt by this .
On one hand , Google provides huge resources to China , but on the other hand...google surely gets a lot of revenue from such a huge market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is will Google jump off the tracks before the China train hits them.
I really don't know who would be more hurt by this.
On one hand, Google provides huge resources to China, but on the other hand...google surely gets a lot of revenue from such a huge market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455774</id>
	<title>Re:All of you are part of the problem</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1268385180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The US government goes farther in debt because it borrows.  No one is forcing them to borrow.  In fact, if they stopped borrowing so much, it would put a lot more pressure on China to let their currency float, solving the trade problems as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US government goes farther in debt because it borrows .
No one is forcing them to borrow .
In fact , if they stopped borrowing so much , it would put a lot more pressure on China to let their currency float , solving the trade problems as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US government goes farther in debt because it borrows.
No one is forcing them to borrow.
In fact, if they stopped borrowing so much, it would put a lot more pressure on China to let their currency float, solving the trade problems as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456230</id>
	<title>Re:Li is Right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268387220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I've seen there, China is doing so well economically that people don't care that much about politics.</p><p>In my opinion, what's dangerous it the nationalist trend encouraged by the state media. In reaction to objections of western countries about human rights violations, Beijing brainwashes people about how great the 5-millenia civilization is, how well Chinese athletes perform at the olympics and how mean the CIA is.<br>People agree passively with this. Imagine China electing a George W. Bush in this context. And cry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I 've seen there , China is doing so well economically that people do n't care that much about politics.In my opinion , what 's dangerous it the nationalist trend encouraged by the state media .
In reaction to objections of western countries about human rights violations , Beijing brainwashes people about how great the 5-millenia civilization is , how well Chinese athletes perform at the olympics and how mean the CIA is.People agree passively with this .
Imagine China electing a George W. Bush in this context .
And cry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I've seen there, China is doing so well economically that people don't care that much about politics.In my opinion, what's dangerous it the nationalist trend encouraged by the state media.
In reaction to objections of western countries about human rights violations, Beijing brainwashes people about how great the 5-millenia civilization is, how well Chinese athletes perform at the olympics and how mean the CIA is.People agree passively with this.
Imagine China electing a George W. Bush in this context.
And cry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456110</id>
	<title>Google and Censorship</title>
	<author>cpghost</author>
	<datestamp>1268386740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, Google has been forced in many countries to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship\_by\_Google" title="wikipedia.org">censor search results</a> [wikipedia.org]. This has gone largely unnoticed. Only when $EVIL\_GOVERNMENT==China do they rebel now? Wouldn't they be more credible if they refused censorship, no matter what... and threatened to move out of DMCA-land and head to a country where they could get away with it, if need be?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Google has been forced in many countries to censor search results [ wikipedia.org ] .
This has gone largely unnoticed .
Only when $ EVIL \ _GOVERNMENT = = China do they rebel now ?
Would n't they be more credible if they refused censorship , no matter what... and threatened to move out of DMCA-land and head to a country where they could get away with it , if need be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Google has been forced in many countries to censor search results [wikipedia.org].
This has gone largely unnoticed.
Only when $EVIL\_GOVERNMENT==China do they rebel now?
Wouldn't they be more credible if they refused censorship, no matter what... and threatened to move out of DMCA-land and head to a country where they could get away with it, if need be?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456650</id>
	<title>Where are the Chinese people on this issue?</title>
	<author>edelbrp</author>
	<datestamp>1268388960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a spokesperson for my government said "of course we have to censor the Internet for stability reasons" my ears would perk up and I'd have to ask "exactly what are you censoring from me?"</p><p>Rewriting history like China's massacre at Tiananmen Square is truly evil.  The only saving grace is that China's dependance on technology is only going to make it harder to control information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a spokesperson for my government said " of course we have to censor the Internet for stability reasons " my ears would perk up and I 'd have to ask " exactly what are you censoring from me ?
" Rewriting history like China 's massacre at Tiananmen Square is truly evil .
The only saving grace is that China 's dependance on technology is only going to make it harder to control information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a spokesperson for my government said "of course we have to censor the Internet for stability reasons" my ears would perk up and I'd have to ask "exactly what are you censoring from me?
"Rewriting history like China's massacre at Tiananmen Square is truly evil.
The only saving grace is that China's dependance on technology is only going to make it harder to control information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454942</id>
	<title>Al Gore to visit China and rescue Google</title>
	<author>Orga</author>
	<datestamp>1268425020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hillary has asked Al to go to China to recover Google and the internet he created from the hands of the evil dictatorship of the Chinese people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hillary has asked Al to go to China to recover Google and the internet he created from the hands of the evil dictatorship of the Chinese people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hillary has asked Al to go to China to recover Google and the internet he created from the hands of the evil dictatorship of the Chinese people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454888</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268424780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Li insisted the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people.</p></div></blockquote><p>The best way to protect the rights of the people is to <i>take them all away</i>.</p><p>I know I'm right.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Li insisted the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people.The best way to protect the rights of the people is to take them all away.I know I 'm right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Li insisted the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people.The best way to protect the rights of the people is to take them all away.I know I'm right.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454818</id>
	<title>See, this is what i was talking about</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1268424480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>regardless of google leaves or stays, american companies are going to suck up to china, and american government is going to do that too. maybe only there will be a few weak statements regarding the state of human rights in china. it will be business as usual :</p><p>american companies are going to help chinese government in suppressing its own citizens for profit. american companies are going to help chinese government to do anything that conflicts with american constitution, and american ideals you people are so proud of.</p><p>and you get worked up everytime someone points that out<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>regardless of google leaves or stays , american companies are going to suck up to china , and american government is going to do that too .
maybe only there will be a few weak statements regarding the state of human rights in china .
it will be business as usual : american companies are going to help chinese government in suppressing its own citizens for profit .
american companies are going to help chinese government to do anything that conflicts with american constitution , and american ideals you people are so proud of.and you get worked up everytime someone points that out ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>regardless of google leaves or stays, american companies are going to suck up to china, and american government is going to do that too.
maybe only there will be a few weak statements regarding the state of human rights in china.
it will be business as usual :american companies are going to help chinese government in suppressing its own citizens for profit.
american companies are going to help chinese government to do anything that conflicts with american constitution, and american ideals you people are so proud of.and you get worked up everytime someone points that out ....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454804</id>
	<title>Oh really?</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1268424420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well Google should tell China they can deep throat it and choke.  I'm all for companies having to comply with national and international laws, but censoring search results is NOT something they should comply with.  I realize this gets into the grey area of "who are you to decide what's right and what's wrong", but still...government-sponsored censorship of search results?  Nothing you could do or say could convince me that is a good idea.</p><p>Information yearns to be free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well Google should tell China they can deep throat it and choke .
I 'm all for companies having to comply with national and international laws , but censoring search results is NOT something they should comply with .
I realize this gets into the grey area of " who are you to decide what 's right and what 's wrong " , but still...government-sponsored censorship of search results ?
Nothing you could do or say could convince me that is a good idea.Information yearns to be free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well Google should tell China they can deep throat it and choke.
I'm all for companies having to comply with national and international laws, but censoring search results is NOT something they should comply with.
I realize this gets into the grey area of "who are you to decide what's right and what's wrong", but still...government-sponsored censorship of search results?
Nothing you could do or say could convince me that is a good idea.Information yearns to be free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456254</id>
	<title>I'm curious...</title>
	<author>kikito</author>
	<datestamp>1268387280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has this person or anyone else from the Chinese government provided any demostration that information "harms stability or the people"?</p><p>I mean, hard evidence. With concrete examples, measurements and definitions of "stability" and "harm".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has this person or anyone else from the Chinese government provided any demostration that information " harms stability or the people " ? I mean , hard evidence .
With concrete examples , measurements and definitions of " stability " and " harm " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has this person or anyone else from the Chinese government provided any demostration that information "harms stability or the people"?I mean, hard evidence.
With concrete examples, measurements and definitions of "stability" and "harm".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455784</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit.</title>
	<author>klenwell</author>
	<datestamp>1268385240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Peasants don't know and don't care about history.  They do know that the local party officials are corrupt, and that many of them are getting shafted.  An uncensored, free internet would be a great way for them to learn more,share stories, and organize.  It would be an amazing platform for the criticism of the communist party.</p></div><p>On this subject, see the recent NY Times article about the Chinese "human search engine":</p><p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazine/07Human-t.html?hp=&amp;pagewanted=all" title="nytimes.com">China&rsquo;s Cyberposse</a> [nytimes.com]</p><p>The article asserts that the internet is being leveraged by the central party for this very purpose.</p><p>The article was a bit eye-opening for me for it showed:</p><p>A) how most Chinese citizens' interest and usage of the internet differs from most American (less social networks, more B.B.S.-driven interaction)</p><p>B) how the internet is a developing platform for reform in China</p><p>C) how it can both be a platform for reform and yet still censored</p><p>D) how it could accomplish all these things without Google and still satisfy most Chinese citizens</p><p>I'm for Google standing up for principle.  I'm not convinced how much impact it would really have.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Peasants do n't know and do n't care about history .
They do know that the local party officials are corrupt , and that many of them are getting shafted .
An uncensored , free internet would be a great way for them to learn more,share stories , and organize .
It would be an amazing platform for the criticism of the communist party.On this subject , see the recent NY Times article about the Chinese " human search engine " : China    s Cyberposse [ nytimes.com ] The article asserts that the internet is being leveraged by the central party for this very purpose.The article was a bit eye-opening for me for it showed : A ) how most Chinese citizens ' interest and usage of the internet differs from most American ( less social networks , more B.B.S.-driven interaction ) B ) how the internet is a developing platform for reform in ChinaC ) how it can both be a platform for reform and yet still censoredD ) how it could accomplish all these things without Google and still satisfy most Chinese citizensI 'm for Google standing up for principle .
I 'm not convinced how much impact it would really have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Peasants don't know and don't care about history.
They do know that the local party officials are corrupt, and that many of them are getting shafted.
An uncensored, free internet would be a great way for them to learn more,share stories, and organize.
It would be an amazing platform for the criticism of the communist party.On this subject, see the recent NY Times article about the Chinese "human search engine":China’s Cyberposse [nytimes.com]The article asserts that the internet is being leveraged by the central party for this very purpose.The article was a bit eye-opening for me for it showed:A) how most Chinese citizens' interest and usage of the internet differs from most American (less social networks, more B.B.S.-driven interaction)B) how the internet is a developing platform for reform in ChinaC) how it can both be a platform for reform and yet still censoredD) how it could accomplish all these things without Google and still satisfy most Chinese citizensI'm for Google standing up for principle.
I'm not convinced how much impact it would really have.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457364</id>
	<title>Google confident of compromise, google search</title>
	<author>jeko</author>
	<datestamp>1268391540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Searching "compromise" on Google returns:</p><p>"Did you mean: completely acquiesce"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Searching " compromise " on Google returns : " Did you mean : completely acquiesce "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Searching "compromise" on Google returns:"Did you mean: completely acquiesce"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456200</id>
	<title>Re:Google needs China, not the other way around</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1268387100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The founders of Google still have a controlling share of the voting stock, so it's not something they have to justify.  If the other shareholders don't like it they can try a lawsuit, but those usually only succeed in cases of fraud or gross incompetence (if Google decided to spend all their cash on strippers, or if they bought AMD without actually checking to see how much debt AMD has, ie due diligence).  In this case it's been pre-announced and clear what Google's been planning for a few months now, so any shareholders' lawsuit isn't likely to succeed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The founders of Google still have a controlling share of the voting stock , so it 's not something they have to justify .
If the other shareholders do n't like it they can try a lawsuit , but those usually only succeed in cases of fraud or gross incompetence ( if Google decided to spend all their cash on strippers , or if they bought AMD without actually checking to see how much debt AMD has , ie due diligence ) .
In this case it 's been pre-announced and clear what Google 's been planning for a few months now , so any shareholders ' lawsuit is n't likely to succeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The founders of Google still have a controlling share of the voting stock, so it's not something they have to justify.
If the other shareholders don't like it they can try a lawsuit, but those usually only succeed in cases of fraud or gross incompetence (if Google decided to spend all their cash on strippers, or if they bought AMD without actually checking to see how much debt AMD has, ie due diligence).
In this case it's been pre-announced and clear what Google's been planning for a few months now, so any shareholders' lawsuit isn't likely to succeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454790</id>
	<title>fp!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268424300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fp!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fp !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fp!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457042</id>
	<title>time to lay down the law</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268390340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>chest puffing tenant with some wannabe gangsta attitude...<br>guess the landlord decided to mete out some reality checks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>chest puffing tenant with some wannabe gangsta attitude...guess the landlord decided to mete out some reality checks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>chest puffing tenant with some wannabe gangsta attitude...guess the landlord decided to mete out some reality checks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455534</id>
	<title>Re:Oh really?</title>
	<author>somersault</author>
	<datestamp>1268427420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is ridiculous for any one person to tell what another person should or should not watch/hear/think</p></div><p>That's ridiculous! Stop telling me what to think!</p><p>(this is the slightly hypocritical problem with liberal thinking)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is ridiculous for any one person to tell what another person should or should not watch/hear/thinkThat 's ridiculous !
Stop telling me what to think !
( this is the slightly hypocritical problem with liberal thinking )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is ridiculous for any one person to tell what another person should or should not watch/hear/thinkThat's ridiculous!
Stop telling me what to think!
(this is the slightly hypocritical problem with liberal thinking)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456534</id>
	<title>Ass</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268388480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You assume, so what does that make you?
</p><p>China is not all that huge. Sure it has a big population, but Google is an American company and it is making Chinese profits over there. Simply put, the "huge" profits in China are not as big when written down in the American accounting books. As MMO's have shown, 100.000 Chinese accounts does NOT mean 1.495.000 in income. The chinese do not pay the same amount as they do in the west. Google ad fees will not be the same in China as they are in the west. Of course, the cost of doing business may be somewhat cheaper as well but enough?
</p><p>The few figures released so far show that the Chinese operations deliver an insignificant percentage of Google's earnings.
</p><p>Business leaders seem to get stuck with dogma. China is a huge market therefor that must mean huge profits... how does this work? Africa is bigger, and India is roughly the same size. Nobody falls over themselves to cater to these markets?
</p><p>Where are these huge profits when you get down to examing the books? They seem to exist only in the heads of MBA's. And all the time you are loosing goodwill and credibility.
</p><p>Google's "don't be evil" motto used to be admired, now it is ridiculed as it clearly has no meaning. How much is THAT in dollar value?
</p><p>Imagine the add campaign Google could have fought with Chrome/Android and its search engine if it was the only one NOT to bow down to China.
</p><p>Chrome: The browser that is NOT approved by communists.
</p><p>Google: The search engine the state can not filter.
</p><p>Android: The OS that is not evil.
</p><p>Silly? That is however exactly what the Apple ad tried to do with its 1984 rip-off, and most US companies LOVE to wave the flag, as long as it doesn't upset the Chinese.
</p><p>Leave the MBA rhetoric at home, and stop thinking that every huge market is worth getting into. Start counting the beans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You assume , so what does that make you ?
China is not all that huge .
Sure it has a big population , but Google is an American company and it is making Chinese profits over there .
Simply put , the " huge " profits in China are not as big when written down in the American accounting books .
As MMO 's have shown , 100.000 Chinese accounts does NOT mean 1.495.000 in income .
The chinese do not pay the same amount as they do in the west .
Google ad fees will not be the same in China as they are in the west .
Of course , the cost of doing business may be somewhat cheaper as well but enough ?
The few figures released so far show that the Chinese operations deliver an insignificant percentage of Google 's earnings .
Business leaders seem to get stuck with dogma .
China is a huge market therefor that must mean huge profits... how does this work ?
Africa is bigger , and India is roughly the same size .
Nobody falls over themselves to cater to these markets ?
Where are these huge profits when you get down to examing the books ?
They seem to exist only in the heads of MBA 's .
And all the time you are loosing goodwill and credibility .
Google 's " do n't be evil " motto used to be admired , now it is ridiculed as it clearly has no meaning .
How much is THAT in dollar value ?
Imagine the add campaign Google could have fought with Chrome/Android and its search engine if it was the only one NOT to bow down to China .
Chrome : The browser that is NOT approved by communists .
Google : The search engine the state can not filter .
Android : The OS that is not evil .
Silly ? That is however exactly what the Apple ad tried to do with its 1984 rip-off , and most US companies LOVE to wave the flag , as long as it does n't upset the Chinese .
Leave the MBA rhetoric at home , and stop thinking that every huge market is worth getting into .
Start counting the beans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You assume, so what does that make you?
China is not all that huge.
Sure it has a big population, but Google is an American company and it is making Chinese profits over there.
Simply put, the "huge" profits in China are not as big when written down in the American accounting books.
As MMO's have shown, 100.000 Chinese accounts does NOT mean 1.495.000 in income.
The chinese do not pay the same amount as they do in the west.
Google ad fees will not be the same in China as they are in the west.
Of course, the cost of doing business may be somewhat cheaper as well but enough?
The few figures released so far show that the Chinese operations deliver an insignificant percentage of Google's earnings.
Business leaders seem to get stuck with dogma.
China is a huge market therefor that must mean huge profits... how does this work?
Africa is bigger, and India is roughly the same size.
Nobody falls over themselves to cater to these markets?
Where are these huge profits when you get down to examing the books?
They seem to exist only in the heads of MBA's.
And all the time you are loosing goodwill and credibility.
Google's "don't be evil" motto used to be admired, now it is ridiculed as it clearly has no meaning.
How much is THAT in dollar value?
Imagine the add campaign Google could have fought with Chrome/Android and its search engine if it was the only one NOT to bow down to China.
Chrome: The browser that is NOT approved by communists.
Google: The search engine the state can not filter.
Android: The OS that is not evil.
Silly? That is however exactly what the Apple ad tried to do with its 1984 rip-off, and most US companies LOVE to wave the flag, as long as it doesn't upset the Chinese.
Leave the MBA rhetoric at home, and stop thinking that every huge market is worth getting into.
Start counting the beans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455440</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit.</title>
	<author>grumpyman</author>
	<datestamp>1268426940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And you think the people over there don't know what happened?  Does the people there really care?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And you think the people over there do n't know what happened ?
Does the people there really care ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you think the people over there don't know what happened?
Does the people there really care?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455960</id>
	<title>Re:Li is Right.</title>
	<author>DeadDecoy</author>
	<datestamp>1268386020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't that presupposing that openness will cause civil strife? An alternative argument is that, if all the flaws about the government are out in the open, it'd be easier to identify and fix problems early, instead of letting them grow out of control. I think the free flow of information causes true damage, only when there are no process to rectify them. E.g. if a corrupt official is abusing their power the people can impeach the official as opposed to initiating a violent coup. Similarly, if a company dumped mercury or lead into the local water supply, would it be better to warn the people that an accident occurred or cover it up? Having growth and stability is good, but it doesn't seem sustainable if no one takes responsibility when things go bad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that presupposing that openness will cause civil strife ?
An alternative argument is that , if all the flaws about the government are out in the open , it 'd be easier to identify and fix problems early , instead of letting them grow out of control .
I think the free flow of information causes true damage , only when there are no process to rectify them .
E.g. if a corrupt official is abusing their power the people can impeach the official as opposed to initiating a violent coup .
Similarly , if a company dumped mercury or lead into the local water supply , would it be better to warn the people that an accident occurred or cover it up ?
Having growth and stability is good , but it does n't seem sustainable if no one takes responsibility when things go bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that presupposing that openness will cause civil strife?
An alternative argument is that, if all the flaws about the government are out in the open, it'd be easier to identify and fix problems early, instead of letting them grow out of control.
I think the free flow of information causes true damage, only when there are no process to rectify them.
E.g. if a corrupt official is abusing their power the people can impeach the official as opposed to initiating a violent coup.
Similarly, if a company dumped mercury or lead into the local water supply, would it be better to warn the people that an accident occurred or cover it up?
Having growth and stability is good, but it doesn't seem sustainable if no one takes responsibility when things go bad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456808</id>
	<title>Didn't google patent region based censorship?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268389500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/16/1311236/Google-Patents-Country-Specific-Content-Blocking?art\_pos=10</p><p>Doesn't this basically mean if Google shuts down the censorship, that bing etc can't just move in without a major patent war first?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/16/1311236/Google-Patents-Country-Specific-Content-Blocking ? art \ _pos = 10Does n't this basically mean if Google shuts down the censorship , that bing etc ca n't just move in without a major patent war first ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/16/1311236/Google-Patents-Country-Specific-Content-Blocking?art\_pos=10Doesn't this basically mean if Google shuts down the censorship, that bing etc can't just move in without a major patent war first?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455748</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit.</title>
	<author>ivanwyc</author>
	<datestamp>1268385060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really. Most young educated Chinese aren't aware of how many people were killed in the past. Textbooks tell you nothing. Most teachers (who wants to keep their jobs) tell you nothing. Many teenagers don't even know what's 6/4 - go grab 10 young guys in cities like Shen Zhen asking them what's 6/4, I am sure you will be very depressed.

Even people in the more civilized city Hong Kong don't know how many people are killed during the Cultural Revolution, they don't even have a rough idea. I know only because I read so many books about modern Chinese history but when I try to tell my friends about these facts, they don't give a shit. Guess what, the Chinese education system is very successful at making people cold blood about history. Many people think it's silly to know about all these things - the only thing they care is how many years they have to work until they can buy the expensive yet small apartment, they think this is the only thing they born to do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
Most young educated Chinese are n't aware of how many people were killed in the past .
Textbooks tell you nothing .
Most teachers ( who wants to keep their jobs ) tell you nothing .
Many teenagers do n't even know what 's 6/4 - go grab 10 young guys in cities like Shen Zhen asking them what 's 6/4 , I am sure you will be very depressed .
Even people in the more civilized city Hong Kong do n't know how many people are killed during the Cultural Revolution , they do n't even have a rough idea .
I know only because I read so many books about modern Chinese history but when I try to tell my friends about these facts , they do n't give a shit .
Guess what , the Chinese education system is very successful at making people cold blood about history .
Many people think it 's silly to know about all these things - the only thing they care is how many years they have to work until they can buy the expensive yet small apartment , they think this is the only thing they born to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
Most young educated Chinese aren't aware of how many people were killed in the past.
Textbooks tell you nothing.
Most teachers (who wants to keep their jobs) tell you nothing.
Many teenagers don't even know what's 6/4 - go grab 10 young guys in cities like Shen Zhen asking them what's 6/4, I am sure you will be very depressed.
Even people in the more civilized city Hong Kong don't know how many people are killed during the Cultural Revolution, they don't even have a rough idea.
I know only because I read so many books about modern Chinese history but when I try to tell my friends about these facts, they don't give a shit.
Guess what, the Chinese education system is very successful at making people cold blood about history.
Many people think it's silly to know about all these things - the only thing they care is how many years they have to work until they can buy the expensive yet small apartment, they think this is the only thing they born to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455644</id>
	<title>Re:Sure buddy</title>
	<author>JumperCable</author>
	<datestamp>1268384700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One darknet app helps, but will never be enough.  They will always be able to find a way to stop &amp; filter a single app.  Albeit you can make it computationally expensive to do, but it can always be blocked.  That's why you need a variety.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One darknet app helps , but will never be enough .
They will always be able to find a way to stop &amp; filter a single app .
Albeit you can make it computationally expensive to do , but it can always be blocked .
That 's why you need a variety .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One darknet app helps, but will never be enough.
They will always be able to find a way to stop &amp; filter a single app.
Albeit you can make it computationally expensive to do, but it can always be blocked.
That's why you need a variety.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456212</id>
	<title>Re:Oh really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268387100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that, but think about how much less spam there would be without a zillion Chinese spammers running around. Google should IP-block the whole shithole country and see how they like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , but think about how much less spam there would be without a zillion Chinese spammers running around .
Google should IP-block the whole shithole country and see how they like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, but think about how much less spam there would be without a zillion Chinese spammers running around.
Google should IP-block the whole shithole country and see how they like it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454832</id>
	<title>Harms stability...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268424540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anything that would promote a different party is harming stability right? I mean, we can't afford to change our dictator too often if we wish to preserve stability!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything that would promote a different party is harming stability right ?
I mean , we ca n't afford to change our dictator too often if we wish to preserve stability !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything that would promote a different party is harming stability right?
I mean, we can't afford to change our dictator too often if we wish to preserve stability!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455668</id>
	<title>Re:Governments are the enemy of its people.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268384760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a ponderable: are you really honestly questioning government, if all you have is a blind reflexive hatred of it in all cases?  I mean, it sounds to me like you're not really questioning anything at all, just reaching for a handy slogan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a ponderable : are you really honestly questioning government , if all you have is a blind reflexive hatred of it in all cases ?
I mean , it sounds to me like you 're not really questioning anything at all , just reaching for a handy slogan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a ponderable: are you really honestly questioning government, if all you have is a blind reflexive hatred of it in all cases?
I mean, it sounds to me like you're not really questioning anything at all, just reaching for a handy slogan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31460434</id>
	<title>Bad idea of China</title>
	<author>Schoenlepel</author>
	<datestamp>1268406780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>China needs censorship, because if they don't they're going to be in a civil war in 10 years.
The government isn't open to new ideas and internet is just the means to spread those.
New ideas (including philosophical, social and political) makes your country grow. Oppression just makes it shrink.
China is growing now, but there comes a points they need to accept that the people can have ideas how things can be done differently.
When critical mass is reached for ideas the government doesn't want, you can get three things: 1) the country becomes more oppressive, and is unable to develop further (for an example see North Korea); 2) civil war (Congo); 3) the government bends to the will of the people and things change (this is the part which comes sooner or later and is best for the cuuntry) (Russia).

Economy is fueled by ideas at the core, restrict the flow of ideas and your restrict your economy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>China needs censorship , because if they do n't they 're going to be in a civil war in 10 years .
The government is n't open to new ideas and internet is just the means to spread those .
New ideas ( including philosophical , social and political ) makes your country grow .
Oppression just makes it shrink .
China is growing now , but there comes a points they need to accept that the people can have ideas how things can be done differently .
When critical mass is reached for ideas the government does n't want , you can get three things : 1 ) the country becomes more oppressive , and is unable to develop further ( for an example see North Korea ) ; 2 ) civil war ( Congo ) ; 3 ) the government bends to the will of the people and things change ( this is the part which comes sooner or later and is best for the cuuntry ) ( Russia ) .
Economy is fueled by ideas at the core , restrict the flow of ideas and your restrict your economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China needs censorship, because if they don't they're going to be in a civil war in 10 years.
The government isn't open to new ideas and internet is just the means to spread those.
New ideas (including philosophical, social and political) makes your country grow.
Oppression just makes it shrink.
China is growing now, but there comes a points they need to accept that the people can have ideas how things can be done differently.
When critical mass is reached for ideas the government doesn't want, you can get three things: 1) the country becomes more oppressive, and is unable to develop further (for an example see North Korea); 2) civil war (Congo); 3) the government bends to the will of the people and things change (this is the part which comes sooner or later and is best for the cuuntry) (Russia).
Economy is fueled by ideas at the core, restrict the flow of ideas and your restrict your economy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454910</id>
	<title>Hate to say it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268424900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>As much as I hate to say it, China really has Google by the balls on this one.  I'm sure there are a million companies with the right connections/deep enough pockets in China right now eagerly waiting to assume Google's spot on the hill and they are all willing to do whatever the government there says.
<br> <br>
I really don't see how Google can adhere to its corporate mission statement and continue to do business with China, although part of me has a hunch that we'll find out since shareholders will demand Google not leave one of the largest markets in the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I hate to say it , China really has Google by the balls on this one .
I 'm sure there are a million companies with the right connections/deep enough pockets in China right now eagerly waiting to assume Google 's spot on the hill and they are all willing to do whatever the government there says .
I really do n't see how Google can adhere to its corporate mission statement and continue to do business with China , although part of me has a hunch that we 'll find out since shareholders will demand Google not leave one of the largest markets in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I hate to say it, China really has Google by the balls on this one.
I'm sure there are a million companies with the right connections/deep enough pockets in China right now eagerly waiting to assume Google's spot on the hill and they are all willing to do whatever the government there says.
I really don't see how Google can adhere to its corporate mission statement and continue to do business with China, although part of me has a hunch that we'll find out since shareholders will demand Google not leave one of the largest markets in the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31459818</id>
	<title>And my prediction???</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1268402640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I can't deliver one.  Like most people here, I hope they make good on their threats and pull out of China.  It would weaken everyone playing in the Chinese market including China if they did.  The saying would be "Google had the balls to stand up to China, why not you?"  China, of course, will be seen as demonstrating their unmovable position on various issues such as their censorship, their human rights and other policies and will continue and even make worse their reputation for being corrupt and unreasonable.</p><p>I want really badly for Google to do "the right thing" (tm) in this, but I rather expect there to be some sort of "compromise" to be announced where both parties somehow save face... it's the Chinese way, after all, but it won't wash very well with Westerners.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I ca n't deliver one .
Like most people here , I hope they make good on their threats and pull out of China .
It would weaken everyone playing in the Chinese market including China if they did .
The saying would be " Google had the balls to stand up to China , why not you ?
" China , of course , will be seen as demonstrating their unmovable position on various issues such as their censorship , their human rights and other policies and will continue and even make worse their reputation for being corrupt and unreasonable.I want really badly for Google to do " the right thing " ( tm ) in this , but I rather expect there to be some sort of " compromise " to be announced where both parties somehow save face... it 's the Chinese way , after all , but it wo n't wash very well with Westerners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I can't deliver one.
Like most people here, I hope they make good on their threats and pull out of China.
It would weaken everyone playing in the Chinese market including China if they did.
The saying would be "Google had the balls to stand up to China, why not you?
"  China, of course, will be seen as demonstrating their unmovable position on various issues such as their censorship, their human rights and other policies and will continue and even make worse their reputation for being corrupt and unreasonable.I want really badly for Google to do "the right thing" (tm) in this, but I rather expect there to be some sort of "compromise" to be announced where both parties somehow save face... it's the Chinese way, after all, but it won't wash very well with Westerners.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455152</id>
	<title>Fear of information implies weakness of government</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1268425800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any government that is afraid of its people having information</p><p>(let's perhaps make an exception for specific information on how to make weapons of mass destruction<br>out of common household ingredients)</p><p>is inherently not a government "of the people for the people".</p><p>It is not confident in its own popularity, or in the inherent stability through general agreement<br>of its governmental system.</p><p>Does the Chinese government not realize that their insistence on censorship simply<br>highlights the inherent weakness in their government and system of government?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any government that is afraid of its people having information ( let 's perhaps make an exception for specific information on how to make weapons of mass destructionout of common household ingredients ) is inherently not a government " of the people for the people " .It is not confident in its own popularity , or in the inherent stability through general agreementof its governmental system.Does the Chinese government not realize that their insistence on censorship simplyhighlights the inherent weakness in their government and system of government ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any government that is afraid of its people having information(let's perhaps make an exception for specific information on how to make weapons of mass destructionout of common household ingredients)is inherently not a government "of the people for the people".It is not confident in its own popularity, or in the inherent stability through general agreementof its governmental system.Does the Chinese government not realize that their insistence on censorship simplyhighlights the inherent weakness in their government and system of government?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31458158</id>
	<title>the obvious, the dirty and the ignorant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268395320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody is going to predict the future here so what happen's is only in the minds of brink et al.</p><p>But, speaking for myself and having been born in a European country that lived under dictatorship for 40 years, I think that Google should quit China. Of course it's a big market, but Google will not loose credibility. If M$$$ jumps in then they can have all the publicity they want and more. I've used Gmail for years and I am very satisfied with it. Hotmail on the other hand...</p><p>Most of all, Chinese dictator/burocrat leaders crave western approval. It's the only way they can do business internationally. Like it or not, their technology is highly dependant on western creativity.</p><p>They will make this an arm wrestle contest, because, in their simpleton minds (let's remember the qualifications of who rules that 1+ billion people nation) it's the only option they got if they want to be respected internally and externally.</p><p>In the long term, however reputation + independence from governments + prestige gained from this episode by the rest of world will benefit Google a lot more.</p><p>One more thing: China is only communist on paper and other symbols. They are - fundamentally - the most extreme capitalist nation in the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody is going to predict the future here so what happen 's is only in the minds of brink et al.But , speaking for myself and having been born in a European country that lived under dictatorship for 40 years , I think that Google should quit China .
Of course it 's a big market , but Google will not loose credibility .
If M $ $ $ jumps in then they can have all the publicity they want and more .
I 've used Gmail for years and I am very satisfied with it .
Hotmail on the other hand...Most of all , Chinese dictator/burocrat leaders crave western approval .
It 's the only way they can do business internationally .
Like it or not , their technology is highly dependant on western creativity.They will make this an arm wrestle contest , because , in their simpleton minds ( let 's remember the qualifications of who rules that 1 + billion people nation ) it 's the only option they got if they want to be respected internally and externally.In the long term , however reputation + independence from governments + prestige gained from this episode by the rest of world will benefit Google a lot more.One more thing : China is only communist on paper and other symbols .
They are - fundamentally - the most extreme capitalist nation in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody is going to predict the future here so what happen's is only in the minds of brink et al.But, speaking for myself and having been born in a European country that lived under dictatorship for 40 years, I think that Google should quit China.
Of course it's a big market, but Google will not loose credibility.
If M$$$ jumps in then they can have all the publicity they want and more.
I've used Gmail for years and I am very satisfied with it.
Hotmail on the other hand...Most of all, Chinese dictator/burocrat leaders crave western approval.
It's the only way they can do business internationally.
Like it or not, their technology is highly dependant on western creativity.They will make this an arm wrestle contest, because, in their simpleton minds (let's remember the qualifications of who rules that 1+ billion people nation) it's the only option they got if they want to be respected internally and externally.In the long term, however reputation + independence from governments + prestige gained from this episode by the rest of world will benefit Google a lot more.One more thing: China is only communist on paper and other symbols.
They are - fundamentally - the most extreme capitalist nation in the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457502</id>
	<title>Re:Al Gore to visit China and rescue Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268392200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summer blockbuster action flick of 2010! That'd be totally sweet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summer blockbuster action flick of 2010 !
That 'd be totally sweet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summer blockbuster action flick of 2010!
That'd be totally sweet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455162</id>
	<title>It's clear google has to "lead" this issue.</title>
	<author>justicenfa</author>
	<datestamp>1268425860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they're inserting information in to their results, it's obvious there will be traces of lead, causing the users of the internet to get cancer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're inserting information in to their results , it 's obvious there will be traces of lead , causing the users of the internet to get cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're inserting information in to their results, it's obvious there will be traces of lead, causing the users of the internet to get cancer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455560</id>
	<title>Re:Google needs China, not the other way around</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268427480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stockholders have an interest in Google's profits?  It's not like the company pays a dividend or its share price is at all correlated with earnings...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stockholders have an interest in Google 's profits ?
It 's not like the company pays a dividend or its share price is at all correlated with earnings.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stockholders have an interest in Google's profits?
It's not like the company pays a dividend or its share price is at all correlated with earnings...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457526</id>
	<title>Re:Li is Right.</title>
	<author>Un pobre guey</author>
	<datestamp>1268392320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I totally agree. Although I would much rather live in a relatively free society like the US (thank you very much), whiny armchair bullshitters seem unable to see the larger picture. Perhaps because the US Civil War is completely gone from living memory, and so few US citizens have had to experience severe social unrest and instability, they are quick to judge based on simple-minded moral and ethical considerations. When living relatives can describe to you misery, death, and destruction from civil strife, you are far more cautious about bringing it about again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally agree .
Although I would much rather live in a relatively free society like the US ( thank you very much ) , whiny armchair bullshitters seem unable to see the larger picture .
Perhaps because the US Civil War is completely gone from living memory , and so few US citizens have had to experience severe social unrest and instability , they are quick to judge based on simple-minded moral and ethical considerations .
When living relatives can describe to you misery , death , and destruction from civil strife , you are far more cautious about bringing it about again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I totally agree.
Although I would much rather live in a relatively free society like the US (thank you very much), whiny armchair bullshitters seem unable to see the larger picture.
Perhaps because the US Civil War is completely gone from living memory, and so few US citizens have had to experience severe social unrest and instability, they are quick to judge based on simple-minded moral and ethical considerations.
When living relatives can describe to you misery, death, and destruction from civil strife, you are far more cautious about bringing it about again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456090</id>
	<title>Li is the instrument of a monstrous tyranny</title>
	<author>fnj</author>
	<datestamp>1268386680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, God help us.  Can't have any of that there "instability," eh?  Gotta have it all nice and stable and nailed down.  Yeah.  That's what tyrannies thrive on.</p><p>Here's a clue, Li, baby.  The people don't exist to serve the state in the manner which the state, in its infinite wisdom, decides.  It's supposed to be the converse.  A true, thriving society is not about "stability."</p><p>Could China's government be worse?  Yes, it could be a lot worse, and it HAS BEEN a lot worse, in recent memory.  But it's still an ugly denial of human dignity and liberty, and acceptance of that ugliness is a participation in an evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , God help us .
Ca n't have any of that there " instability , " eh ?
Got ta have it all nice and stable and nailed down .
Yeah. That 's what tyrannies thrive on.Here 's a clue , Li , baby .
The people do n't exist to serve the state in the manner which the state , in its infinite wisdom , decides .
It 's supposed to be the converse .
A true , thriving society is not about " stability .
" Could China 's government be worse ?
Yes , it could be a lot worse , and it HAS BEEN a lot worse , in recent memory .
But it 's still an ugly denial of human dignity and liberty , and acceptance of that ugliness is a participation in an evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, God help us.
Can't have any of that there "instability," eh?
Gotta have it all nice and stable and nailed down.
Yeah.  That's what tyrannies thrive on.Here's a clue, Li, baby.
The people don't exist to serve the state in the manner which the state, in its infinite wisdom, decides.
It's supposed to be the converse.
A true, thriving society is not about "stability.
"Could China's government be worse?
Yes, it could be a lot worse, and it HAS BEEN a lot worse, in recent memory.
But it's still an ugly denial of human dignity and liberty, and acceptance of that ugliness is a participation in an evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456138</id>
	<title>Re:Oh really?</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1268386860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's much easier to tell others to stand on principle than to do it oneself.</p><p>Personally, I have no problem with Google following the law in this case.  If the law was to sacrifice a baby for each search result returned then that's one thing, but censorship is, at worst, an inconvenience.  Moreover, every country has some form of censorship, and crossing that line can and does result in imprisonment.  The argument over where and how to draw the line is appropriate, but it's also one that each sovereign nation must make for itself.  I have no problem with voicing our opinion, as we're fortunately free to do, but at the end of the day China must decide for itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's much easier to tell others to stand on principle than to do it oneself.Personally , I have no problem with Google following the law in this case .
If the law was to sacrifice a baby for each search result returned then that 's one thing , but censorship is , at worst , an inconvenience .
Moreover , every country has some form of censorship , and crossing that line can and does result in imprisonment .
The argument over where and how to draw the line is appropriate , but it 's also one that each sovereign nation must make for itself .
I have no problem with voicing our opinion , as we 're fortunately free to do , but at the end of the day China must decide for itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's much easier to tell others to stand on principle than to do it oneself.Personally, I have no problem with Google following the law in this case.
If the law was to sacrifice a baby for each search result returned then that's one thing, but censorship is, at worst, an inconvenience.
Moreover, every country has some form of censorship, and crossing that line can and does result in imprisonment.
The argument over where and how to draw the line is appropriate, but it's also one that each sovereign nation must make for itself.
I have no problem with voicing our opinion, as we're fortunately free to do, but at the end of the day China must decide for itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455034</id>
	<title>Re:Oh really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268425320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats the first time in a long time I've seen something wise come from one of your posts. Usually its just you trolling for more hits to your blog.</p><p>Kudos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats the first time in a long time I 've seen something wise come from one of your posts .
Usually its just you trolling for more hits to your blog.Kudos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats the first time in a long time I've seen something wise come from one of your posts.
Usually its just you trolling for more hits to your blog.Kudos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454898</id>
	<title>All of you are part of the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268424900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You bitch about China, but you continue to buy their wares.  You let the U.S. go farther into debt and let China lend us more cash.</p><p>Hypocrites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You bitch about China , but you continue to buy their wares .
You let the U.S. go farther into debt and let China lend us more cash.Hypocrites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You bitch about China, but you continue to buy their wares.
You let the U.S. go farther into debt and let China lend us more cash.Hypocrites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456616</id>
	<title>Re:All of you are part of the problem</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1268388780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course we're hypocrites. It comes from the top. Hell, economists and the reserve bank are regarding an <a href="http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2010/03/05/consumer-debt-increases-time-year/" title="personalmoneystore.com">increase in consumer debt</a> [personalmoneystore.com] as a GOOD thing. THAT'S WHAT GOT US INTO THIS MESS. What. The. Fuck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course we 're hypocrites .
It comes from the top .
Hell , economists and the reserve bank are regarding an increase in consumer debt [ personalmoneystore.com ] as a GOOD thing .
THAT 'S WHAT GOT US INTO THIS MESS .
What. The .
Fuck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course we're hypocrites.
It comes from the top.
Hell, economists and the reserve bank are regarding an increase in consumer debt [personalmoneystore.com] as a GOOD thing.
THAT'S WHAT GOT US INTO THIS MESS.
What. The.
Fuck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455898</id>
	<title>What about Slash?</title>
	<author>Dthief</author>
	<datestamp>1268385720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anyone know if slashdot is accessible in China? and if so are there certain articles that must be filtered</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone know if slashdot is accessible in China ?
and if so are there certain articles that must be filtered</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone know if slashdot is accessible in China?
and if so are there certain articles that must be filtered</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454872</id>
	<title>Governments are the enemy of its people.</title>
	<author>Zombie Ryushu</author>
	<datestamp>1268424720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Governments are the enemy of its people in all cases and in all nations. The highest form of patriotism to ones country is to constantly question, challenge and investigate all government officials in every nation, in every circumstance. Don't let secrets be held.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Governments are the enemy of its people in all cases and in all nations .
The highest form of patriotism to ones country is to constantly question , challenge and investigate all government officials in every nation , in every circumstance .
Do n't let secrets be held .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Governments are the enemy of its people in all cases and in all nations.
The highest form of patriotism to ones country is to constantly question, challenge and investigate all government officials in every nation, in every circumstance.
Don't let secrets be held.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456670</id>
	<title>China Only Cares About WalMart</title>
	<author>smist08</author>
	<datestamp>1268389020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only American company China cares about is WalMart. As long as all the crap WalMart sells is manufactured in China, the Chinese are happy. If WalMart promoted all manufacturing by their suppliers to move elsewhere (like they promoted it to move to China in the first place), then it would severely damage the Chinese economy. China is a manufacturing economy, that is what they will protect. They give lip service to the information economy, but really can't abide by what it implies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only American company China cares about is WalMart .
As long as all the crap WalMart sells is manufactured in China , the Chinese are happy .
If WalMart promoted all manufacturing by their suppliers to move elsewhere ( like they promoted it to move to China in the first place ) , then it would severely damage the Chinese economy .
China is a manufacturing economy , that is what they will protect .
They give lip service to the information economy , but really ca n't abide by what it implies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only American company China cares about is WalMart.
As long as all the crap WalMart sells is manufactured in China, the Chinese are happy.
If WalMart promoted all manufacturing by their suppliers to move elsewhere (like they promoted it to move to China in the first place), then it would severely damage the Chinese economy.
China is a manufacturing economy, that is what they will protect.
They give lip service to the information economy, but really can't abide by what it implies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31463814</id>
	<title>Re:Game of Chicken</title>
	<author>Phoghat</author>
	<datestamp>1268494500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FTFA:
<p> <i>"Li insisted the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people."</i>
</p><p> How is not knowing something protecting the rights of the people.
</p><p> <i>"Li said the government opposes hacking."</i>
</p><p>Yadda yadda
</p><p> <i>"Beijing has rejected suggestions by Western security experts that China's military or government agencies might have been involved in the hacking."</i>
</p><p>More yadda yadda. "We're not doing anything, Nothing to see here. Move along.
</p><p> <i>"Google wants to keep a Beijing development center, advertising sales offices and a fledgling mobile phone business, according to a person familiar with the company's thinking.</i>
</p><p> So do you think Google will stay in China because they're money whores? Who's going to hurt more? It seems Google will still have most of the world on its site even without China and they'll sell them Android phone anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA : " Li insisted the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people .
" How is not knowing something protecting the rights of the people .
" Li said the government opposes hacking .
" Yadda yadda " Beijing has rejected suggestions by Western security experts that China 's military or government agencies might have been involved in the hacking .
" More yadda yadda .
" We 're not doing anything , Nothing to see here .
Move along .
" Google wants to keep a Beijing development center , advertising sales offices and a fledgling mobile phone business , according to a person familiar with the company 's thinking .
So do you think Google will stay in China because they 're money whores ?
Who 's going to hurt more ?
It seems Google will still have most of the world on its site even without China and they 'll sell them Android phone anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFA:
 "Li insisted the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people.
"
 How is not knowing something protecting the rights of the people.
"Li said the government opposes hacking.
"
Yadda yadda
 "Beijing has rejected suggestions by Western security experts that China's military or government agencies might have been involved in the hacking.
"
More yadda yadda.
"We're not doing anything, Nothing to see here.
Move along.
"Google wants to keep a Beijing development center, advertising sales offices and a fledgling mobile phone business, according to a person familiar with the company's thinking.
So do you think Google will stay in China because they're money whores?
Who's going to hurt more?
It seems Google will still have most of the world on its site even without China and they'll sell them Android phone anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454916</id>
	<title>Google needs China, not the other way around</title>
	<author>superyanthrax</author>
	<datestamp>1268424900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Baidu can just take over the other 30\% market share it doesn't have, but Google loses quite a bit of revenue.  <br> <br>

I wonder how the next Google stockholder's meeting will go if Google leaves, how can the Board answer the question of why the stockholders' interests (i.e. profits) were blatantly compromised for empty, useless proclamations of "human rights?" <br> <br>

Google will cave because they need us and we don't need them. "Human rights" are a ridiculous non-issue. Nobody in power in the world actually cares at all, they just use it to rile up their own people against foreign governments. When push comes to shove stuff will get done and "human rights" will not get in the way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Baidu can just take over the other 30 \ % market share it does n't have , but Google loses quite a bit of revenue .
I wonder how the next Google stockholder 's meeting will go if Google leaves , how can the Board answer the question of why the stockholders ' interests ( i.e .
profits ) were blatantly compromised for empty , useless proclamations of " human rights ?
" Google will cave because they need us and we do n't need them .
" Human rights " are a ridiculous non-issue .
Nobody in power in the world actually cares at all , they just use it to rile up their own people against foreign governments .
When push comes to shove stuff will get done and " human rights " will not get in the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Baidu can just take over the other 30\% market share it doesn't have, but Google loses quite a bit of revenue.
I wonder how the next Google stockholder's meeting will go if Google leaves, how can the Board answer the question of why the stockholders' interests (i.e.
profits) were blatantly compromised for empty, useless proclamations of "human rights?
"  

Google will cave because they need us and we don't need them.
"Human rights" are a ridiculous non-issue.
Nobody in power in the world actually cares at all, they just use it to rile up their own people against foreign governments.
When push comes to shove stuff will get done and "human rights" will not get in the way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454824</id>
	<title>Bullshit.</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1268424480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Li insisted the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people.</i></p><p>Li is a lying little tyrannical thug.  What he would say if he were an honest man, is that the Chinese government is scared to death of what might happen to the party minions when ordinary Chinese realize that Mao killed more of them than Tojo.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Li insisted the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people.Li is a lying little tyrannical thug .
What he would say if he were an honest man , is that the Chinese government is scared to death of what might happen to the party minions when ordinary Chinese realize that Mao killed more of them than Tojo.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Li insisted the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people.Li is a lying little tyrannical thug.
What he would say if he were an honest man, is that the Chinese government is scared to death of what might happen to the party minions when ordinary Chinese realize that Mao killed more of them than Tojo.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455680</id>
	<title>Chinese patents?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268384820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about any patents Google may have in China? Does Google just walk away from their patents or defend them, without actually using the technology within China?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about any patents Google may have in China ?
Does Google just walk away from their patents or defend them , without actually using the technology within China ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about any patents Google may have in China?
Does Google just walk away from their patents or defend them, without actually using the technology within China?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455144</id>
	<title>It will take another generation or two</title>
	<author>Trip6</author>
	<datestamp>1268425740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China's leaders still live in a world of controlled information flow to the masses.  This works well if the masses have to come to you for their information and culturally accept this form of government.</p><p>The more Chinese that return home after being abroad and experiencing a free flow of information, the faster these policies will no longer be tolerated by the masses.  Government will have to change with the times.  But the change will have to come from within and it will take another generation or two.</p><p>For now, Google has to play by the rules of those in power.  The business opportunity is too great to ignore, so we can predict they will conform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China 's leaders still live in a world of controlled information flow to the masses .
This works well if the masses have to come to you for their information and culturally accept this form of government.The more Chinese that return home after being abroad and experiencing a free flow of information , the faster these policies will no longer be tolerated by the masses .
Government will have to change with the times .
But the change will have to come from within and it will take another generation or two.For now , Google has to play by the rules of those in power .
The business opportunity is too great to ignore , so we can predict they will conform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China's leaders still live in a world of controlled information flow to the masses.
This works well if the masses have to come to you for their information and culturally accept this form of government.The more Chinese that return home after being abroad and experiencing a free flow of information, the faster these policies will no longer be tolerated by the masses.
Government will have to change with the times.
But the change will have to come from within and it will take another generation or two.For now, Google has to play by the rules of those in power.
The business opportunity is too great to ignore, so we can predict they will conform.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456018</id>
	<title>Re:Game of Chicken</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1268386380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know that china got a military of about 3 million active personnel, and about 800 million being fit for it?<br>If they want, they take all of Google&rsquo;s servers in China for themselves, and let the staff work as slaves, and nobody in the world can do anything about it.</p><p>It&rsquo;s very brave to stand up against China, and I applaud that.<br>I&rsquo;m just saying that they should know when to get out. (When you still can.)</p><p>What it&rsquo;s definitely not, is some game of chicken that Google can even imagine winning. It&rsquo;s like being in a X-Wing, against the Death Star. Except in real life realism. No Force. Not even the Schwartz.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know that china got a military of about 3 million active personnel , and about 800 million being fit for it ? If they want , they take all of Google    s servers in China for themselves , and let the staff work as slaves , and nobody in the world can do anything about it.It    s very brave to stand up against China , and I applaud that.I    m just saying that they should know when to get out .
( When you still can .
) What it    s definitely not , is some game of chicken that Google can even imagine winning .
It    s like being in a X-Wing , against the Death Star .
Except in real life realism .
No Force .
Not even the Schwartz .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know that china got a military of about 3 million active personnel, and about 800 million being fit for it?If they want, they take all of Google’s servers in China for themselves, and let the staff work as slaves, and nobody in the world can do anything about it.It’s very brave to stand up against China, and I applaud that.I’m just saying that they should know when to get out.
(When you still can.
)What it’s definitely not, is some game of chicken that Google can even imagine winning.
It’s like being in a X-Wing, against the Death Star.
Except in real life realism.
No Force.
Not even the Schwartz.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454848</id>
	<title>Advice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268424600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd advise Google to get all of its employees out of China that they don't want to be found dead someplace if they want to continue to be defiant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd advise Google to get all of its employees out of China that they do n't want to be found dead someplace if they want to continue to be defiant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd advise Google to get all of its employees out of China that they don't want to be found dead someplace if they want to continue to be defiant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31458702</id>
	<title>Re:I think Google should leave.</title>
	<author>sgt\_doom</author>
	<datestamp>1268397720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because the People's Liberation Army (the Chinese military) owns all those factories which American-based multinationals (and Japanese-based multinationals, and European-based multinationals) shipped all those jobs off to....just saying....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the People 's Liberation Army ( the Chinese military ) owns all those factories which American-based multinationals ( and Japanese-based multinationals , and European-based multinationals ) shipped all those jobs off to....just saying... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the People's Liberation Army (the Chinese military) owns all those factories which American-based multinationals (and Japanese-based multinationals, and European-based multinationals) shipped all those jobs off to....just saying....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455690</id>
	<title>Re:Google needs China, not the other way around</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1268384820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder how the next Google stockholder's meeting will go if Google leaves, how can the Board answer the question of why the stockholders' interests (i.e. profits) were blatantly compromised for empty, useless proclamations of "human rights?"</p> </div><p>That says more about the personal beliefs of the stock holders (who, let's not forget, are people and supposed to act like people) than about Google's commercial practices.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how the next Google stockholder 's meeting will go if Google leaves , how can the Board answer the question of why the stockholders ' interests ( i.e .
profits ) were blatantly compromised for empty , useless proclamations of " human rights ?
" That says more about the personal beliefs of the stock holders ( who , let 's not forget , are people and supposed to act like people ) than about Google 's commercial practices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how the next Google stockholder's meeting will go if Google leaves, how can the Board answer the question of why the stockholders' interests (i.e.
profits) were blatantly compromised for empty, useless proclamations of "human rights?
" That says more about the personal beliefs of the stock holders (who, let's not forget, are people and supposed to act like people) than about Google's commercial practices.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456568</id>
	<title>Re:Governments are the enemy of its people.</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1268388600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama has supported secrecy in ACTA, supported renewing the PATRIOT act as it is, and given a free pass to the FBI on its abuse of NSL's, as well as failing to follow through on many of his most important promises of things like transparency in the government. He most certainly is an enemy of Americans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama has supported secrecy in ACTA , supported renewing the PATRIOT act as it is , and given a free pass to the FBI on its abuse of NSL 's , as well as failing to follow through on many of his most important promises of things like transparency in the government .
He most certainly is an enemy of Americans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama has supported secrecy in ACTA, supported renewing the PATRIOT act as it is, and given a free pass to the FBI on its abuse of NSL's, as well as failing to follow through on many of his most important promises of things like transparency in the government.
He most certainly is an enemy of Americans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455018</id>
	<title>Information that harms stability or the people</title>
	<author>owlstead</author>
	<datestamp>1268425260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That must be a specific kind of information that I'm not so familiar with. Sure thing, there are things you can *do* with information that can harm stability or people, but to blame information itself always strikes me as madness.</p><p>It's like those people that say you cannot study homo-sexuality because the outcome could have severe consequences. By now we know that homo-sexuality does seem to imply physical manifestations. Personally I don't think that information has changed much in how we treat homo-sexual persons at all (for good or for worse).</p><p>Even in the western world there seems to be way too much information that gets hidden away for such purposes, e.g. for national security. In almost all cases that don't directly involve e.g. names of persons in sensitive operations, it's poppy-cock. And even then the information should be open to the public directly after that kind of information is not directly harmful those involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That must be a specific kind of information that I 'm not so familiar with .
Sure thing , there are things you can * do * with information that can harm stability or people , but to blame information itself always strikes me as madness.It 's like those people that say you can not study homo-sexuality because the outcome could have severe consequences .
By now we know that homo-sexuality does seem to imply physical manifestations .
Personally I do n't think that information has changed much in how we treat homo-sexual persons at all ( for good or for worse ) .Even in the western world there seems to be way too much information that gets hidden away for such purposes , e.g .
for national security .
In almost all cases that do n't directly involve e.g .
names of persons in sensitive operations , it 's poppy-cock .
And even then the information should be open to the public directly after that kind of information is not directly harmful those involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That must be a specific kind of information that I'm not so familiar with.
Sure thing, there are things you can *do* with information that can harm stability or people, but to blame information itself always strikes me as madness.It's like those people that say you cannot study homo-sexuality because the outcome could have severe consequences.
By now we know that homo-sexuality does seem to imply physical manifestations.
Personally I don't think that information has changed much in how we treat homo-sexual persons at all (for good or for worse).Even in the western world there seems to be way too much information that gets hidden away for such purposes, e.g.
for national security.
In almost all cases that don't directly involve e.g.
names of persons in sensitive operations, it's poppy-cock.
And even then the information should be open to the public directly after that kind of information is not directly harmful those involved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456082</id>
	<title>Yeah, this works every time...</title>
	<author>dwiget001</author>
	<datestamp>1268386620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people."</p><p>Uh huh.</p><p>Maybe I am missing something, but since when were the rights of any country and its people protected by censorship?</p><p>O.K., that is a bit rhetorical, I admit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people .
" Uh huh.Maybe I am missing something , but since when were the rights of any country and its people protected by censorship ? O.K. , that is a bit rhetorical , I admit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people.
"Uh huh.Maybe I am missing something, but since when were the rights of any country and its people protected by censorship?O.K., that is a bit rhetorical, I admit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31461892</id>
	<title>Consequences?</title>
	<author>fred133</author>
	<datestamp>1268420040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As we all know, a majority of the hacks/spam out there arrive to us via<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.CN,<br>I'm sure someone in the US would fund Google to write some code to put<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.CN on another planet...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.CN may be a large market, but who wants to fish in a pond full of inedible fish?<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As we all know , a majority of the hacks/spam out there arrive to us via .CN,I 'm sure someone in the US would fund Google to write some code to put .CN on another planet... .CN may be a large market , but who wants to fish in a pond full of inedible fish ?
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>As we all know, a majority of the hacks/spam out there arrive to us via .CN,I'm sure someone in the US would fund Google to write some code to put .CN on another planet... .CN may be a large market, but who wants to fish in a pond full of inedible fish?
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31459288</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268400180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At the time, Lincoln was in charge, and he was a Republican (which used to be the "good" party- <b>Democrats and Republicans sorta swapped platforms in the 1960s as a result of the Civil Rights movement</b>).</p></div><p>More Republicans by percentage voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil\_Rights\_Act\_of\_1964#Vote\_totals</p><p>You could argue that the Southern Democrats should be excluded, but even with that the Northern Republican and Democrat yeas were still pretty close.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the time , Lincoln was in charge , and he was a Republican ( which used to be the " good " party- Democrats and Republicans sorta swapped platforms in the 1960s as a result of the Civil Rights movement ) .More Republicans by percentage voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil \ _Rights \ _Act \ _of \ _1964 # Vote \ _totalsYou could argue that the Southern Democrats should be excluded , but even with that the Northern Republican and Democrat yeas were still pretty close .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the time, Lincoln was in charge, and he was a Republican (which used to be the "good" party- Democrats and Republicans sorta swapped platforms in the 1960s as a result of the Civil Rights movement).More Republicans by percentage voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil\_Rights\_Act\_of\_1964#Vote\_totalsYou could argue that the Southern Democrats should be excluded, but even with that the Northern Republican and Democrat yeas were still pretty close.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31458598</id>
	<title>Re:Information that harms stability or the people</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268397240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That must be a specific kind of information that I'm not so familiar with.</p></div><p>If you're a citizen of the US, you should be quite familiar with the concept, in fact. Ever heard of ACTA?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That must be a specific kind of information that I 'm not so familiar with.If you 're a citizen of the US , you should be quite familiar with the concept , in fact .
Ever heard of ACTA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That must be a specific kind of information that I'm not so familiar with.If you're a citizen of the US, you should be quite familiar with the concept, in fact.
Ever heard of ACTA?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456204</id>
	<title>China has a right to enforce its laws</title>
	<author>EvlG</author>
	<datestamp>1268387100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China has a right to enforce its laws. You may not agree with the law, but China is a sovereign nation and has the right to make and enforce laws. An external corporation has to abide by them or pay the price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China has a right to enforce its laws .
You may not agree with the law , but China is a sovereign nation and has the right to make and enforce laws .
An external corporation has to abide by them or pay the price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China has a right to enforce its laws.
You may not agree with the law, but China is a sovereign nation and has the right to make and enforce laws.
An external corporation has to abide by them or pay the price.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454930</id>
	<title>Filtering is the only way</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268424960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Western propaganda has been so perfected that they let us think we have freedom of speech and access to information. The only way for China to fight such a media industry is with outright blocking of information. It's unfortunate that they are trying to rewrite some of their history while at it (say Tianamen Square), but I can't think of another way they could protect their national consciousness from the west</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Western propaganda has been so perfected that they let us think we have freedom of speech and access to information .
The only way for China to fight such a media industry is with outright blocking of information .
It 's unfortunate that they are trying to rewrite some of their history while at it ( say Tianamen Square ) , but I ca n't think of another way they could protect their national consciousness from the west</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Western propaganda has been so perfected that they let us think we have freedom of speech and access to information.
The only way for China to fight such a media industry is with outright blocking of information.
It's unfortunate that they are trying to rewrite some of their history while at it (say Tianamen Square), but I can't think of another way they could protect their national consciousness from the west</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31459838</id>
	<title>Re:Ass</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1268402820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point is not big profits now, though it certainly pays its way, the point is that if China's economy develops to the same level as for example South Korea, which is perfectly conceivable, then you have an economy that is 2 - 3 times bigger than the US, and you have established your market share in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point is not big profits now , though it certainly pays its way , the point is that if China 's economy develops to the same level as for example South Korea , which is perfectly conceivable , then you have an economy that is 2 - 3 times bigger than the US , and you have established your market share in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point is not big profits now, though it certainly pays its way, the point is that if China's economy develops to the same level as for example South Korea, which is perfectly conceivable, then you have an economy that is 2 - 3 times bigger than the US, and you have established your market share in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31460638</id>
	<title>Re:I think Google should leave.</title>
	<author>Schoenlepel</author>
	<datestamp>1268408400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ok, pick up a dictionary and look up <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">communism</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">socialism</a> [wikipedia.org]. I think you'll notice that those are two qiute different ideas.</p><p>In the case of China you're not dealing with a communist nor socialist country, you're dealing with a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">totalitarian</a> [wikipedia.org] country; quite a difference.</p><p>The error most people make is that they believe that totalitarianism is the same as communism, which it is not. However, countries trying to implement those ideas to the absolute however have all fallen to the trap of totalitarianism, which is a shame.</p><p>It is disturbing to see persons who seem quite intelligent otherwise make the simple, but dumb, mistake of switching those three ideas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ok , pick up a dictionary and look up communism [ wikipedia.org ] and socialism [ wikipedia.org ] .
I think you 'll notice that those are two qiute different ideas.In the case of China you 're not dealing with a communist nor socialist country , you 're dealing with a totalitarian [ wikipedia.org ] country ; quite a difference.The error most people make is that they believe that totalitarianism is the same as communism , which it is not .
However , countries trying to implement those ideas to the absolute however have all fallen to the trap of totalitarianism , which is a shame.It is disturbing to see persons who seem quite intelligent otherwise make the simple , but dumb , mistake of switching those three ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ok, pick up a dictionary and look up communism [wikipedia.org] and socialism [wikipedia.org].
I think you'll notice that those are two qiute different ideas.In the case of China you're not dealing with a communist nor socialist country, you're dealing with a totalitarian [wikipedia.org] country; quite a difference.The error most people make is that they believe that totalitarianism is the same as communism, which it is not.
However, countries trying to implement those ideas to the absolute however have all fallen to the trap of totalitarianism, which is a shame.It is disturbing to see persons who seem quite intelligent otherwise make the simple, but dumb, mistake of switching those three ideas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455570</id>
	<title>Re:Google needs China, not the other way around</title>
	<author>blitzkrieg3</author>
	<datestamp>1268427540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Human rights have nothing to do with it. Google was hacked. If people can't trust the contents of their GMail inbox to remain out of the hands of Chinese intelligence, and Google can't ensure that some Chinese entity isn't stealing proprietary code, Google's profits will suffer. Pulling out of China will make this less of a threat. It's a cost-benefit analysis, and that's how it would be presented to the shareholders.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Human rights have nothing to do with it .
Google was hacked .
If people ca n't trust the contents of their GMail inbox to remain out of the hands of Chinese intelligence , and Google ca n't ensure that some Chinese entity is n't stealing proprietary code , Google 's profits will suffer .
Pulling out of China will make this less of a threat .
It 's a cost-benefit analysis , and that 's how it would be presented to the shareholders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human rights have nothing to do with it.
Google was hacked.
If people can't trust the contents of their GMail inbox to remain out of the hands of Chinese intelligence, and Google can't ensure that some Chinese entity isn't stealing proprietary code, Google's profits will suffer.
Pulling out of China will make this less of a threat.
It's a cost-benefit analysis, and that's how it would be presented to the shareholders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454968</id>
	<title>Tin-Pot Dictatorship</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268425080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>'Whether they leave or not is up to them,' Li said. 'But if they leave, China's Internet market is still going to develop.'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Li insisted the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people. 'If there is information that harms stability or the people, of course we will have to block it,' he said."</p></div></blockquote><p>
China's Internet market is still going to develop.. Without Google's help for the oppression part.  Rights of it's country and people... Our country here has no rights it is composed of people who have rights unlike the people there.  Block it.. Of course, anything that brings the day closer to China's dictatorship falling and their leaders heads on pikes must be subverted and assassinated in the most perverse manners to "Protect the Rights of the Country."  Oh yeah, and I'm going to post anonymously because you can't do that there as well... After all people must be "responsible" for their words..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Whether they leave or not is up to them, ' Li said .
'But if they leave , China 's Internet market is still going to develop .
' ... Li insisted the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people .
'If there is information that harms stability or the people , of course we will have to block it, ' he said .
" China 's Internet market is still going to develop.. Without Google 's help for the oppression part .
Rights of it 's country and people... Our country here has no rights it is composed of people who have rights unlike the people there .
Block it.. Of course , anything that brings the day closer to China 's dictatorship falling and their leaders heads on pikes must be subverted and assassinated in the most perverse manners to " Protect the Rights of the Country .
" Oh yeah , and I 'm going to post anonymously because you ca n't do that there as well... After all people must be " responsible " for their words. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Whether they leave or not is up to them,' Li said.
'But if they leave, China's Internet market is still going to develop.
' ... Li insisted the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people.
'If there is information that harms stability or the people, of course we will have to block it,' he said.
"
China's Internet market is still going to develop.. Without Google's help for the oppression part.
Rights of it's country and people... Our country here has no rights it is composed of people who have rights unlike the people there.
Block it.. Of course, anything that brings the day closer to China's dictatorship falling and their leaders heads on pikes must be subverted and assassinated in the most perverse manners to "Protect the Rights of the Country.
"  Oh yeah, and I'm going to post anonymously because you can't do that there as well... After all people must be "responsible" for their words..
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31458526</id>
	<title>Nope...</title>
	<author>ak3ldama</author>
	<datestamp>1268397000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'If you want to do something that disobeys Chinese law and regulations, you are unfriendly, you are irresponsible and you will have to pay the consequences,' Li Yizhong</p></div><p>Actually, it means you disobeyed a law. Pretty sure that's it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'If you want to do something that disobeys Chinese law and regulations , you are unfriendly , you are irresponsible and you will have to pay the consequences, ' Li YizhongActually , it means you disobeyed a law .
Pretty sure that 's it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'If you want to do something that disobeys Chinese law and regulations, you are unfriendly, you are irresponsible and you will have to pay the consequences,' Li YizhongActually, it means you disobeyed a law.
Pretty sure that's it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455100</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit.</title>
	<author>vampire\_baozi</author>
	<datestamp>1268425560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most educated Chinese are well aware, and really don't care that much about the Mao years.  Same party, different leadership.  American parallel: The Civil War killed more Americans than pretty much all other wars combined to date, since it was Americans vs Americans on American soil.  At the time, Lincoln was in charge, and he was a Republican (which used to be the "good" party- Democrats and Republicans sorta swapped platforms in the 1960s as a result of the Civil Rights movement).</p><p>So new boss, very different from the old boss.  They don't give a fuck if the Chinese know about 6/4 or the Great Leap Forward.  But stopping censorship would open up the floodgates of freedom of speech and criticism.  Peasants don't know and don't care about history.  They do know that the local party officials are corrupt, and that many of them are getting shafted.  An uncensored, free internet would be a great way for them to learn more,share stories, and organize.  It would be an amazing platform for the criticism of the communist party.</p><p>It's not even the Central party they'd be criticizing; many Chinese adore Grandpa Hu and Grandpa Wen.  The local party officials are another thing altogether, especially in rural areas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most educated Chinese are well aware , and really do n't care that much about the Mao years .
Same party , different leadership .
American parallel : The Civil War killed more Americans than pretty much all other wars combined to date , since it was Americans vs Americans on American soil .
At the time , Lincoln was in charge , and he was a Republican ( which used to be the " good " party- Democrats and Republicans sorta swapped platforms in the 1960s as a result of the Civil Rights movement ) .So new boss , very different from the old boss .
They do n't give a fuck if the Chinese know about 6/4 or the Great Leap Forward .
But stopping censorship would open up the floodgates of freedom of speech and criticism .
Peasants do n't know and do n't care about history .
They do know that the local party officials are corrupt , and that many of them are getting shafted .
An uncensored , free internet would be a great way for them to learn more,share stories , and organize .
It would be an amazing platform for the criticism of the communist party.It 's not even the Central party they 'd be criticizing ; many Chinese adore Grandpa Hu and Grandpa Wen .
The local party officials are another thing altogether , especially in rural areas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most educated Chinese are well aware, and really don't care that much about the Mao years.
Same party, different leadership.
American parallel: The Civil War killed more Americans than pretty much all other wars combined to date, since it was Americans vs Americans on American soil.
At the time, Lincoln was in charge, and he was a Republican (which used to be the "good" party- Democrats and Republicans sorta swapped platforms in the 1960s as a result of the Civil Rights movement).So new boss, very different from the old boss.
They don't give a fuck if the Chinese know about 6/4 or the Great Leap Forward.
But stopping censorship would open up the floodgates of freedom of speech and criticism.
Peasants don't know and don't care about history.
They do know that the local party officials are corrupt, and that many of them are getting shafted.
An uncensored, free internet would be a great way for them to learn more,share stories, and organize.
It would be an amazing platform for the criticism of the communist party.It's not even the Central party they'd be criticizing; many Chinese adore Grandpa Hu and Grandpa Wen.
The local party officials are another thing altogether, especially in rural areas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31460540</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit.</title>
	<author>quenda</author>
	<datestamp>1268407680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> the Chinese government is scared to death of what might happen to the party minions when ordinary Chinese realize that Mao killed more of them than Tojo.</p></div><p>If so, they worry too much. Bush killed more Americans than bin Laden &amp; KSM by starting a war under false pretences. This is no secret in the US, but he and the neocons still live the high life.<br>No 'net censorship needed, just a little influence over the mass media. (No I'm not equating Bush with Mao, but Hussein was no Tojo either.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the Chinese government is scared to death of what might happen to the party minions when ordinary Chinese realize that Mao killed more of them than Tojo.If so , they worry too much .
Bush killed more Americans than bin Laden &amp; KSM by starting a war under false pretences .
This is no secret in the US , but he and the neocons still live the high life.No 'net censorship needed , just a little influence over the mass media .
( No I 'm not equating Bush with Mao , but Hussein was no Tojo either .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext> the Chinese government is scared to death of what might happen to the party minions when ordinary Chinese realize that Mao killed more of them than Tojo.If so, they worry too much.
Bush killed more Americans than bin Laden &amp; KSM by starting a war under false pretences.
This is no secret in the US, but he and the neocons still live the high life.No 'net censorship needed, just a little influence over the mass media.
(No I'm not equating Bush with Mao, but Hussein was no Tojo either.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456458</id>
	<title>Re:Sure buddy</title>
	<author>evanism</author>
	<datestamp>1268388060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we have one here in Australia too please!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we have one here in Australia too please !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we have one here in Australia too please!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456456</id>
	<title>Shouldn't we tell Chinese companies the same?</title>
	<author>cycle003</author>
	<datestamp>1268388060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the US needs to tell Chinese companies the same thing when they are putting lead paint on toys or melamine in milk or whatever other things they are trying to pass off to the American public.

While I respect the right of the Chinese to decide their own laws and policies, I am pretty frustrated with the US's lack of courage to take a stance against the kind of things that the Chinese are trying to get away with, including tainted products and intellectual property theft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the US needs to tell Chinese companies the same thing when they are putting lead paint on toys or melamine in milk or whatever other things they are trying to pass off to the American public .
While I respect the right of the Chinese to decide their own laws and policies , I am pretty frustrated with the US 's lack of courage to take a stance against the kind of things that the Chinese are trying to get away with , including tainted products and intellectual property theft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the US needs to tell Chinese companies the same thing when they are putting lead paint on toys or melamine in milk or whatever other things they are trying to pass off to the American public.
While I respect the right of the Chinese to decide their own laws and policies, I am pretty frustrated with the US's lack of courage to take a stance against the kind of things that the Chinese are trying to get away with, including tainted products and intellectual property theft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31463064</id>
	<title>Even better...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268483940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1st of april is coming up. They could rickroll China, only the video should be replaced with tank-man, same song ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1st of april is coming up .
They could rickroll China , only the video should be replaced with tank-man , same song ^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1st of april is coming up.
They could rickroll China, only the video should be replaced with tank-man, same song ^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31460574</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit.</title>
	<author>RocketRabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1268407920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Talk to a Chinese person.  Educated ones.</p><p>Most of them have *NO IDEA* that Mao ever killed anybody.  Most of them are completely unaware of Tienamin Square, other than a nice place to take a stroll.</p><p>They are hardly aware of these things.  It is somewhat dishonest to suggest they "don't care" when they don't know, when all books, videos, an mention of these things has been erased from history.</p><p>Question:  How much did you get paid for your post?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk to a Chinese person .
Educated ones.Most of them have * NO IDEA * that Mao ever killed anybody .
Most of them are completely unaware of Tienamin Square , other than a nice place to take a stroll.They are hardly aware of these things .
It is somewhat dishonest to suggest they " do n't care " when they do n't know , when all books , videos , an mention of these things has been erased from history.Question : How much did you get paid for your post ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk to a Chinese person.
Educated ones.Most of them have *NO IDEA* that Mao ever killed anybody.
Most of them are completely unaware of Tienamin Square, other than a nice place to take a stroll.They are hardly aware of these things.
It is somewhat dishonest to suggest they "don't care" when they don't know, when all books, videos, an mention of these things has been erased from history.Question:  How much did you get paid for your post?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456774</id>
	<title>Re:Hate to say it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268389380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easy Peasy....<br>Found an startup<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... glegoo, in china<br>Do an agreement between glegoo and google wher google leases its search engine access to glegoo<br>Let glegoo do the nasty censorship<br>Charge for the lease 90\% of glegoo profit<br>That's it Google doesn't do evil glegoo does<br>(I think I should trademark the name...mmmm)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy Peasy....Found an startup .... glegoo , in chinaDo an agreement between glegoo and google wher google leases its search engine access to glegooLet glegoo do the nasty censorshipCharge for the lease 90 \ % of glegoo profitThat 's it Google does n't do evil glegoo does ( I think I should trademark the name...mmmm )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy Peasy....Found an startup .... glegoo, in chinaDo an agreement between glegoo and google wher google leases its search engine access to glegooLet glegoo do the nasty censorshipCharge for the lease 90\% of glegoo profitThat's it Google doesn't do evil glegoo does(I think I should trademark the name...mmmm)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455054</id>
	<title>Good and bad</title>
	<author>LoudMusic</author>
	<datestamp>1268425440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course the censorship is a terrible thing. That's pretty much a given. But at least the government is sticking to their rules for all parties rather than bending them or making deals for 'influential' organizations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course the censorship is a terrible thing .
That 's pretty much a given .
But at least the government is sticking to their rules for all parties rather than bending them or making deals for 'influential ' organizations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course the censorship is a terrible thing.
That's pretty much a given.
But at least the government is sticking to their rules for all parties rather than bending them or making deals for 'influential' organizations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456214</id>
	<title>Re:Li is Right.</title>
	<author>roman\_mir</author>
	<datestamp>1268387160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have your analysis backwards.  The USSR was having massive economic problems, that lead to the situation, that was impossible to hide.  The elephant in the room was that the USSR was failing economically, this could not be concealed, 'glasnost' (openness sort of) and 'perestroyka' (reconstruction/rebuilding) was resulting from the economic problems, not the other way around.</p><p>The implementation of changes in the former USSR republics was flawed, but nobody knew how to deal with such things.  Do you know how to change a huge country's political and economical systems and yet have stable economy in the process?  I don't think anyone really can say they do.  Besides, even if you do know it, what are your chances of implementing all of that in such an environment?</p><p>China has done one thing right: keep the political system as is, but allow small and then medium and even large business to take over economy, (while of-course controlling stakes in those businesses).  It's probably for the best for them.  However it does not look like the Party is right when at this point when it comes to openness, human rights and such.  The Party now is finding itself in a situation, where the economy can really move itself, the role of the Party is diminishing.  That's why they want to keep control of the information - to keep control of power.  They don't care about some ideas of overall stability, they just want stability for their own positions of power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have your analysis backwards .
The USSR was having massive economic problems , that lead to the situation , that was impossible to hide .
The elephant in the room was that the USSR was failing economically , this could not be concealed , 'glasnost ' ( openness sort of ) and 'perestroyka ' ( reconstruction/rebuilding ) was resulting from the economic problems , not the other way around.The implementation of changes in the former USSR republics was flawed , but nobody knew how to deal with such things .
Do you know how to change a huge country 's political and economical systems and yet have stable economy in the process ?
I do n't think anyone really can say they do .
Besides , even if you do know it , what are your chances of implementing all of that in such an environment ? China has done one thing right : keep the political system as is , but allow small and then medium and even large business to take over economy , ( while of-course controlling stakes in those businesses ) .
It 's probably for the best for them .
However it does not look like the Party is right when at this point when it comes to openness , human rights and such .
The Party now is finding itself in a situation , where the economy can really move itself , the role of the Party is diminishing .
That 's why they want to keep control of the information - to keep control of power .
They do n't care about some ideas of overall stability , they just want stability for their own positions of power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have your analysis backwards.
The USSR was having massive economic problems, that lead to the situation, that was impossible to hide.
The elephant in the room was that the USSR was failing economically, this could not be concealed, 'glasnost' (openness sort of) and 'perestroyka' (reconstruction/rebuilding) was resulting from the economic problems, not the other way around.The implementation of changes in the former USSR republics was flawed, but nobody knew how to deal with such things.
Do you know how to change a huge country's political and economical systems and yet have stable economy in the process?
I don't think anyone really can say they do.
Besides, even if you do know it, what are your chances of implementing all of that in such an environment?China has done one thing right: keep the political system as is, but allow small and then medium and even large business to take over economy, (while of-course controlling stakes in those businesses).
It's probably for the best for them.
However it does not look like the Party is right when at this point when it comes to openness, human rights and such.
The Party now is finding itself in a situation, where the economy can really move itself, the role of the Party is diminishing.
That's why they want to keep control of the information - to keep control of power.
They don't care about some ideas of overall stability, they just want stability for their own positions of power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31470606</id>
	<title>Re:Fear of information implies weakness of governm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268557500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does the <b>New Zealand</b> government not realize that their insistence on censorship simply<br>highlights the inherent weakness in their government and system of government?</p><p>Insert western democracy of your choice - all governments censor - ALL of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the New Zealand government not realize that their insistence on censorship simplyhighlights the inherent weakness in their government and system of government ? Insert western democracy of your choice - all governments censor - ALL of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the New Zealand government not realize that their insistence on censorship simplyhighlights the inherent weakness in their government and system of government?Insert western democracy of your choice - all governments censor - ALL of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457788</id>
	<title>What about this assertion?</title>
	<author>weston</author>
	<datestamp>1268393460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1580980&amp;cid=31455040" title="slashdot.org">As a foreigner, you cannot compete in China against a Chinese competitor.</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Sounds pretty straight up to me. Big market, sure, but foreign competitors will always be at a disadvantage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a foreigner , you can not compete in China against a Chinese competitor .
[ slashdot.org ] Sounds pretty straight up to me .
Big market , sure , but foreign competitors will always be at a disadvantage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a foreigner, you cannot compete in China against a Chinese competitor.
[slashdot.org]Sounds pretty straight up to me.
Big market, sure, but foreign competitors will always be at a disadvantage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455294</id>
	<title>Re:Governments are the enemy of its people.</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1268426400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Governments are the enemy of its people in all cases and in all nations.</p></div><p>Wow, this is such a bad misconception that if you base your actions on this idea, you will end up doing weird things like flying a plane into a government building.  Government isn't our enemy, it is our collective way of cooperating and getting things done.  You should read the preamble to the constitution sometime, it tells the purpose of government. Then look at Somalia for a vivid example of why government is better than none. It's good there are no warlords in America.<br> <br>
Instead think of government as a kind of servant.  It exists to do our will.  It is run by people, so it is not perfect, and you certainly need to watch it, otherwise it will start doing stuff you don't want it to do (government responds to people who pay attention to it: if the only people who pay attention are the ones that want special kickbacks, then it will respond mainly to them).<br> <br>
Seriously, do  you think Obama is your enemy?  Do you think Harry Reid is your enemy?  I don't agree with everything Obama does, but I generally feel he is trying to help the American people.  Harry Reid is kind of a dud but calling him an enemy is a bit much.  Even if you do a character analysis of Bush (whose policies I generally hated), read his speeches, look at his actions and try to figure out who he really is, it's hard to claim that he wasn't at least trying to help out the American people.<br> <br>
There are some people in government who <i>are</i> enemies of the people, and these people should be identified and removed, but that is different than saying that government is the enemy.  "Government is the enemy" is some kind of backward reactionist ideology. Instead view government as a tool: it can benefit or harm us, much like a hammer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Governments are the enemy of its people in all cases and in all nations.Wow , this is such a bad misconception that if you base your actions on this idea , you will end up doing weird things like flying a plane into a government building .
Government is n't our enemy , it is our collective way of cooperating and getting things done .
You should read the preamble to the constitution sometime , it tells the purpose of government .
Then look at Somalia for a vivid example of why government is better than none .
It 's good there are no warlords in America .
Instead think of government as a kind of servant .
It exists to do our will .
It is run by people , so it is not perfect , and you certainly need to watch it , otherwise it will start doing stuff you do n't want it to do ( government responds to people who pay attention to it : if the only people who pay attention are the ones that want special kickbacks , then it will respond mainly to them ) .
Seriously , do you think Obama is your enemy ?
Do you think Harry Reid is your enemy ?
I do n't agree with everything Obama does , but I generally feel he is trying to help the American people .
Harry Reid is kind of a dud but calling him an enemy is a bit much .
Even if you do a character analysis of Bush ( whose policies I generally hated ) , read his speeches , look at his actions and try to figure out who he really is , it 's hard to claim that he was n't at least trying to help out the American people .
There are some people in government who are enemies of the people , and these people should be identified and removed , but that is different than saying that government is the enemy .
" Government is the enemy " is some kind of backward reactionist ideology .
Instead view government as a tool : it can benefit or harm us , much like a hammer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Governments are the enemy of its people in all cases and in all nations.Wow, this is such a bad misconception that if you base your actions on this idea, you will end up doing weird things like flying a plane into a government building.
Government isn't our enemy, it is our collective way of cooperating and getting things done.
You should read the preamble to the constitution sometime, it tells the purpose of government.
Then look at Somalia for a vivid example of why government is better than none.
It's good there are no warlords in America.
Instead think of government as a kind of servant.
It exists to do our will.
It is run by people, so it is not perfect, and you certainly need to watch it, otherwise it will start doing stuff you don't want it to do (government responds to people who pay attention to it: if the only people who pay attention are the ones that want special kickbacks, then it will respond mainly to them).
Seriously, do  you think Obama is your enemy?
Do you think Harry Reid is your enemy?
I don't agree with everything Obama does, but I generally feel he is trying to help the American people.
Harry Reid is kind of a dud but calling him an enemy is a bit much.
Even if you do a character analysis of Bush (whose policies I generally hated), read his speeches, look at his actions and try to figure out who he really is, it's hard to claim that he wasn't at least trying to help out the American people.
There are some people in government who are enemies of the people, and these people should be identified and removed, but that is different than saying that government is the enemy.
"Government is the enemy" is some kind of backward reactionist ideology.
Instead view government as a tool: it can benefit or harm us, much like a hammer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457808</id>
	<title>Re:Game of Chicken</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1268393520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Don't Be Evil"</p><p>Aiding and abetting censorship versus exposing your employees to imprisonment or worse at the hands of an oppressive government.</p><p>I think Google's saintly mission did plenty to expose China for the pack of thieves and thugs it really is, and lo and behold even the US State department's involved now.</p><p>Now it's time for Google to get the hell out of dodge before any of their workers wind up disappeared.</p><p>They've already done loads better than they could have had they stayed out to begin with and simply let a less scrupulous search engine take their place.</p><p>China is better off for having had Google's presence, if only until the government blew a gasket and told them to GTFO before any more of their people were enlightened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Do n't Be Evil " Aiding and abetting censorship versus exposing your employees to imprisonment or worse at the hands of an oppressive government.I think Google 's saintly mission did plenty to expose China for the pack of thieves and thugs it really is , and lo and behold even the US State department 's involved now.Now it 's time for Google to get the hell out of dodge before any of their workers wind up disappeared.They 've already done loads better than they could have had they stayed out to begin with and simply let a less scrupulous search engine take their place.China is better off for having had Google 's presence , if only until the government blew a gasket and told them to GTFO before any more of their people were enlightened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Don't Be Evil"Aiding and abetting censorship versus exposing your employees to imprisonment or worse at the hands of an oppressive government.I think Google's saintly mission did plenty to expose China for the pack of thieves and thugs it really is, and lo and behold even the US State department's involved now.Now it's time for Google to get the hell out of dodge before any of their workers wind up disappeared.They've already done loads better than they could have had they stayed out to begin with and simply let a less scrupulous search engine take their place.China is better off for having had Google's presence, if only until the government blew a gasket and told them to GTFO before any more of their people were enlightened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31459356</id>
	<title>"Stability" means Poverty.</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1268400480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck China.</p><p>And Fuck America.</p><p>These two governments are equally corrupt. I hope Google has the balls to stand up against the US government as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck China.And Fuck America.These two governments are equally corrupt .
I hope Google has the balls to stand up against the US government as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck China.And Fuck America.These two governments are equally corrupt.
I hope Google has the balls to stand up against the US government as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456416</id>
	<title>Re:All of you are part of the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268387940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't.  But by assuming that I do, you prove that YOU'RE part of the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't .
But by assuming that I do , you prove that YOU 'RE part of the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't.
But by assuming that I do, you prove that YOU'RE part of the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457770</id>
	<title>Re:Game of Chicken</title>
	<author>sabt-pestnu</author>
	<datestamp>1268393400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Chinese government has, in recent memory, censored/banned particular internet companies to the point of making them unworkable, shortly before rolling out their own Government Sponsored, nearly identical service.</p><p>You might want to consider the money aspect in this.  Not only do they get absolute control over the service in China, but they get all the money from it, too.</p><p>If you think that the Chinese users will switch to using Tor and proxies to get around the Great Firewall...  I can, by way of example, point you to the vast majority of American citizens who have never heard of such things.  And they don't even have censorship as an excuse.    The geeks may.  The politicized geeks are likely to.  But the common man?  Not hardly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Chinese government has , in recent memory , censored/banned particular internet companies to the point of making them unworkable , shortly before rolling out their own Government Sponsored , nearly identical service.You might want to consider the money aspect in this .
Not only do they get absolute control over the service in China , but they get all the money from it , too.If you think that the Chinese users will switch to using Tor and proxies to get around the Great Firewall... I can , by way of example , point you to the vast majority of American citizens who have never heard of such things .
And they do n't even have censorship as an excuse .
The geeks may .
The politicized geeks are likely to .
But the common man ?
Not hardly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Chinese government has, in recent memory, censored/banned particular internet companies to the point of making them unworkable, shortly before rolling out their own Government Sponsored, nearly identical service.You might want to consider the money aspect in this.
Not only do they get absolute control over the service in China, but they get all the money from it, too.If you think that the Chinese users will switch to using Tor and proxies to get around the Great Firewall...  I can, by way of example, point you to the vast majority of American citizens who have never heard of such things.
And they don't even have censorship as an excuse.
The geeks may.
The politicized geeks are likely to.
But the common man?
Not hardly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456974</id>
	<title>Re:Governments are the enemy of its people.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268390100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You show me a promise, I'll tell you how it was broken.</p></div></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/" title="politifact.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/</a> [politifact.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You show me a promise , I 'll tell you how it was broken.http : //www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ [ politifact.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You show me a promise, I'll tell you how it was broken.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/ [politifact.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456322</id>
	<title>Re:Sure buddy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268387580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would you really want to use a darknet app developed by one of the world's largest advertising companies?  Just use Freenet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you really want to use a darknet app developed by one of the world 's largest advertising companies ?
Just use Freenet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you really want to use a darknet app developed by one of the world's largest advertising companies?
Just use Freenet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455436</id>
	<title>Re:Governments are the enemy of its people.</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1268426940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most people who say that do not work out at the gym or the range<br>often enough, and, let's just say, would get a new perspective thrust upon them in a world of anarchy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most people who say that do not work out at the gym or the rangeoften enough , and , let 's just say , would get a new perspective thrust upon them in a world of anarchy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most people who say that do not work out at the gym or the rangeoften enough, and, let's just say, would get a new perspective thrust upon them in a world of anarchy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455494</id>
	<title>Re:Sure buddy</title>
	<author>crhylove</author>
	<datestamp>1268427240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If google did this, I would have to change my anti-corporate rhetoric into anti Apple and MS rhetoric.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If google did this , I would have to change my anti-corporate rhetoric into anti Apple and MS rhetoric .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If google did this, I would have to change my anti-corporate rhetoric into anti Apple and MS rhetoric.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456880</id>
	<title>It appears that Google is losing this test . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268389740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>of its principles.  The Chinese are not going to compromise.  They never do.</p><p>If the folks at Google were as good as their word they would tell the Chinese to "fry ice" and cease operations in China.  Of course no corporation in this modern world will stick to its principles.  Corporate principles and ideals are only for show to deceive the public.  Profit is all that matters.</p><p>So I guess Google is EVIL after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>of its principles .
The Chinese are not going to compromise .
They never do.If the folks at Google were as good as their word they would tell the Chinese to " fry ice " and cease operations in China .
Of course no corporation in this modern world will stick to its principles .
Corporate principles and ideals are only for show to deceive the public .
Profit is all that matters.So I guess Google is EVIL after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of its principles.
The Chinese are not going to compromise.
They never do.If the folks at Google were as good as their word they would tell the Chinese to "fry ice" and cease operations in China.
Of course no corporation in this modern world will stick to its principles.
Corporate principles and ideals are only for show to deceive the public.
Profit is all that matters.So I guess Google is EVIL after all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457896</id>
	<title>Re:Hate to say it</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1268393880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guarantee that Google will get muddy very fast if they let any of their employees get jailed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guarantee that Google will get muddy very fast if they let any of their employees get jailed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guarantee that Google will get muddy very fast if they let any of their employees get jailed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31459790</id>
	<title>Re:Game of Chicken</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1268402520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Baidu it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Baidu it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Baidu it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31458664</id>
	<title>According to all newsytards, they're democratic</title>
	<author>sgt\_doom</author>
	<datestamp>1268397600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oooh....ooh...ooh...maybe if Korporate Amerika offshores their last ten jobs to China, they'll become democratic?  Ooh...ooh...ooh...And maybe the Ameritard will never learn....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oooh....ooh...ooh...maybe if Korporate Amerika offshores their last ten jobs to China , they 'll become democratic ?
Ooh...ooh...ooh...And maybe the Ameritard will never learn... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oooh....ooh...ooh...maybe if Korporate Amerika offshores their last ten jobs to China, they'll become democratic?
Ooh...ooh...ooh...And maybe the Ameritard will never learn....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455036</id>
	<title>Re:Oh really?</title>
	<author>hazah</author>
	<datestamp>1268425380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>who are you to decide what's right and what's wrong</p></div><p>I think a better, and more appropriate question is, "Who are THEY to decide what's right and what's wrong?"</p><p>Yes, it's their country, and it's their laws, sure, I give them that. But that does not stipulate that their reach is endless and that there's no point in which no one should give a shit what they think is right. Censorship is one such item that is completely beyond their reach. It is ridiculous for any one person to tell what another person should or should not watch/hear/think. It's stupid and it's DOOMED to fail all the time, and it does, and we see it time and time again. Stupid. It's stupid to insist that it's necessary for anything. It's stupid to think to yourself that it's anything but another example of "do it my way or else!" that we all got to love in our kindergarten days.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>who are you to decide what 's right and what 's wrongI think a better , and more appropriate question is , " Who are THEY to decide what 's right and what 's wrong ?
" Yes , it 's their country , and it 's their laws , sure , I give them that .
But that does not stipulate that their reach is endless and that there 's no point in which no one should give a shit what they think is right .
Censorship is one such item that is completely beyond their reach .
It is ridiculous for any one person to tell what another person should or should not watch/hear/think .
It 's stupid and it 's DOOMED to fail all the time , and it does , and we see it time and time again .
Stupid. It 's stupid to insist that it 's necessary for anything .
It 's stupid to think to yourself that it 's anything but another example of " do it my way or else !
" that we all got to love in our kindergarten days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who are you to decide what's right and what's wrongI think a better, and more appropriate question is, "Who are THEY to decide what's right and what's wrong?
"Yes, it's their country, and it's their laws, sure, I give them that.
But that does not stipulate that their reach is endless and that there's no point in which no one should give a shit what they think is right.
Censorship is one such item that is completely beyond their reach.
It is ridiculous for any one person to tell what another person should or should not watch/hear/think.
It's stupid and it's DOOMED to fail all the time, and it does, and we see it time and time again.
Stupid. It's stupid to insist that it's necessary for anything.
It's stupid to think to yourself that it's anything but another example of "do it my way or else!
" that we all got to love in our kindergarten days.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456618</id>
	<title>Re:Oh really?</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1268388840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot that US demands censoring search results, with DMCA. Just that in the western countries it tends to go more about censorship for copyright issues or something else illegal, while in China it might go towards criticizing government or certain parts of history.</p><p>It's still exactly the same, we just think "but it's not that <i>bad</i>" because it's what we are used to and our culture has taught us it. It might be exactly reversed situation in China and they think western people are weird or under strict government control (unless they've fallen for the propaganda about "freedom" that people so often seem to have a need to bring up)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot that US demands censoring search results , with DMCA .
Just that in the western countries it tends to go more about censorship for copyright issues or something else illegal , while in China it might go towards criticizing government or certain parts of history.It 's still exactly the same , we just think " but it 's not that bad " because it 's what we are used to and our culture has taught us it .
It might be exactly reversed situation in China and they think western people are weird or under strict government control ( unless they 've fallen for the propaganda about " freedom " that people so often seem to have a need to bring up )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot that US demands censoring search results, with DMCA.
Just that in the western countries it tends to go more about censorship for copyright issues or something else illegal, while in China it might go towards criticizing government or certain parts of history.It's still exactly the same, we just think "but it's not that bad" because it's what we are used to and our culture has taught us it.
It might be exactly reversed situation in China and they think western people are weird or under strict government control (unless they've fallen for the propaganda about "freedom" that people so often seem to have a need to bring up)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31459848</id>
	<title>Re:All of you are part of the problem</title>
	<author>GetTragic</author>
	<datestamp>1268402880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, let's ban China from buying our t-notes, how horrible of them.  And ban poor people from shopping at Wal-Mart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , let 's ban China from buying our t-notes , how horrible of them .
And ban poor people from shopping at Wal-Mart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, let's ban China from buying our t-notes, how horrible of them.
And ban poor people from shopping at Wal-Mart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456672</id>
	<title>Re:Game of Chicken</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268389020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I really don't know who would be more hurt by this. On one hand, Google provides huge resources to China, but on the other hand...google surely gets a lot of revenue from such a huge market.</i></p><p>It's China.  There is no huge market there.<br>Texas is a larger market than China is.</p><p>Google will not be hurt in so far as losing market share.<br>A billion people sure, but only a few hundred thousand sources of income.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't know who would be more hurt by this .
On one hand , Google provides huge resources to China , but on the other hand...google surely gets a lot of revenue from such a huge market.It 's China .
There is no huge market there.Texas is a larger market than China is.Google will not be hurt in so far as losing market share.A billion people sure , but only a few hundred thousand sources of income .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't know who would be more hurt by this.
On one hand, Google provides huge resources to China, but on the other hand...google surely gets a lot of revenue from such a huge market.It's China.
There is no huge market there.Texas is a larger market than China is.Google will not be hurt in so far as losing market share.A billion people sure, but only a few hundred thousand sources of income.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31460184</id>
	<title>GOOG</title>
	<author>zxcvbnmasdfghjkl</author>
	<datestamp>1268405160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since Google is publicly traded, any philosophical thoughts about censorship or anything else are irrelevant.  Their obligation is to the $tock holders now, not any moral high ground.  Any noble stance they had years ago is now nothing other than a marketing tool also focused on their only purpose:  money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since Google is publicly traded , any philosophical thoughts about censorship or anything else are irrelevant .
Their obligation is to the $ tock holders now , not any moral high ground .
Any noble stance they had years ago is now nothing other than a marketing tool also focused on their only purpose : money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since Google is publicly traded, any philosophical thoughts about censorship or anything else are irrelevant.
Their obligation is to the $tock holders now, not any moral high ground.
Any noble stance they had years ago is now nothing other than a marketing tool also focused on their only purpose:  money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31460312</id>
	<title>Re:All of you are part of the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268405940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah. we should live in caves in the woods and forage for roots in unincorporated territory (the moon? Antarctica?) where we can live 100\% in sync with our ideals. and you are insightful? moderation system is surely broken when everyone is an idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
we should live in caves in the woods and forage for roots in unincorporated territory ( the moon ?
Antarctica ? ) where we can live 100 \ % in sync with our ideals .
and you are insightful ?
moderation system is surely broken when everyone is an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
we should live in caves in the woods and forage for roots in unincorporated territory (the moon?
Antarctica?) where we can live 100\% in sync with our ideals.
and you are insightful?
moderation system is surely broken when everyone is an idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454906</id>
	<title>Protecting rights my ass</title>
	<author>smooth wombat</author>
	<datestamp>1268424900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>'If there is information that harms stability or the people, of course we will have to block it,' he said."</em>

<br> <br>

Yes, wouldn't want the people to know about <a href="http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/03/11/2225543.aspx" title="msn.com">the corruption of your officials</a> [msn.com].  That wouldn't be a good thing.

<br> <br>

I used the issue of China in my IT ethics class and said that having Google or Cisco leave China because they refuse to censor brings up a whole host of other issues.  If Google leaves, are they taking their code and such with them?  What about equipment they used?  Are they scrubbing that before leaving?  What about any documents pertaining to how their searches are done?

<br> <br>

While the Chinese people won't see much of a difference if Google leaves, the Chinese IT folks might have some issues recreating what was once there.  Personally, Google should leave and post whatever information they want so people know what they had to deal with in China.

<br> <br>

As most asian countries have a cultural bias towards not losing stature, having their dirty laundry aired, the <b>really</b> dirty stuff, would be a mighty slap in the face which China won't be able to deny so easily.  They'll deny it, but their words will ring hollow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>'If there is information that harms stability or the people , of course we will have to block it, ' he said .
" Yes , would n't want the people to know about the corruption of your officials [ msn.com ] .
That would n't be a good thing .
I used the issue of China in my IT ethics class and said that having Google or Cisco leave China because they refuse to censor brings up a whole host of other issues .
If Google leaves , are they taking their code and such with them ?
What about equipment they used ?
Are they scrubbing that before leaving ?
What about any documents pertaining to how their searches are done ?
While the Chinese people wo n't see much of a difference if Google leaves , the Chinese IT folks might have some issues recreating what was once there .
Personally , Google should leave and post whatever information they want so people know what they had to deal with in China .
As most asian countries have a cultural bias towards not losing stature , having their dirty laundry aired , the really dirty stuff , would be a mighty slap in the face which China wo n't be able to deny so easily .
They 'll deny it , but their words will ring hollow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'If there is information that harms stability or the people, of course we will have to block it,' he said.
"

 

Yes, wouldn't want the people to know about the corruption of your officials [msn.com].
That wouldn't be a good thing.
I used the issue of China in my IT ethics class and said that having Google or Cisco leave China because they refuse to censor brings up a whole host of other issues.
If Google leaves, are they taking their code and such with them?
What about equipment they used?
Are they scrubbing that before leaving?
What about any documents pertaining to how their searches are done?
While the Chinese people won't see much of a difference if Google leaves, the Chinese IT folks might have some issues recreating what was once there.
Personally, Google should leave and post whatever information they want so people know what they had to deal with in China.
As most asian countries have a cultural bias towards not losing stature, having their dirty laundry aired, the really dirty stuff, would be a mighty slap in the face which China won't be able to deny so easily.
They'll deny it, but their words will ring hollow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456854</id>
	<title>Re:Governments are the enemy of its people.</title>
	<author>evanism</author>
	<datestamp>1268389620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; It's good there are no warlords in America.</p><p>Ahem!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; It 's good there are no warlords in America.Ahem !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; It's good there are no warlords in America.Ahem!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455238</id>
	<title>Seems China, as usual, is all backwards....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268426220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it harms stability *or the people*...</p><p>Should be, if it harms the people, or stability.</p><p>ie - censorship harms the people - so it should go, since the people are more important than the government and it's own closed minded grasps at tyrannical control.</p><p>But of course, when you rely on keeping people ignorant of how things truly are, you're bound to step on many, many, many (billions of many(s)) necks and data lines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it harms stability * or the people * ...Should be , if it harms the people , or stability.ie - censorship harms the people - so it should go , since the people are more important than the government and it 's own closed minded grasps at tyrannical control.But of course , when you rely on keeping people ignorant of how things truly are , you 're bound to step on many , many , many ( billions of many ( s ) ) necks and data lines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it harms stability *or the people*...Should be, if it harms the people, or stability.ie - censorship harms the people - so it should go, since the people are more important than the government and it's own closed minded grasps at tyrannical control.But of course, when you rely on keeping people ignorant of how things truly are, you're bound to step on many, many, many (billions of many(s)) necks and data lines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457856</id>
	<title>Re:All of you are part of the problem</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1268393700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What choice do I have when our greedy bankers have mopped up all the money so that I can't afford to buy american anymore?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What choice do I have when our greedy bankers have mopped up all the money so that I ca n't afford to buy american anymore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What choice do I have when our greedy bankers have mopped up all the money so that I can't afford to buy american anymore?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454974</id>
	<title>Shiver me timbers, but ....</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1268425080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i get the odd feeling that google will leave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i get the odd feeling that google will leave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i get the odd feeling that google will leave</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455212</id>
	<title>The thing that pisses my off</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1268426100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>is that the West thinks that the Chinese are so helpless and so ignorant that they need us to save them from their corrupt government.  China is a huge, diverse country that is working its way toward modernization and first-world status.  It's tough going, but I have no doubts that they will get there eventually.  I don't think that the West can make the process go any quicker.  That said, Google should stay and just be there as things open up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>is that the West thinks that the Chinese are so helpless and so ignorant that they need us to save them from their corrupt government .
China is a huge , diverse country that is working its way toward modernization and first-world status .
It 's tough going , but I have no doubts that they will get there eventually .
I do n't think that the West can make the process go any quicker .
That said , Google should stay and just be there as things open up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is that the West thinks that the Chinese are so helpless and so ignorant that they need us to save them from their corrupt government.
China is a huge, diverse country that is working its way toward modernization and first-world status.
It's tough going, but I have no doubts that they will get there eventually.
I don't think that the West can make the process go any quicker.
That said, Google should stay and just be there as things open up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456006</id>
	<title>I think Google should leave.</title>
	<author>Beelzebud</author>
	<datestamp>1268386260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>" Li insisted the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people."
<br>
<br>
Censor to protect rights?
<br>
<br>
Someone remind me why we're even dealing with these people?   Oh yeah, wait.   Lots of money.

It's pretty amazing how some people fear "socialism" here in the U.S. but are perfectly willing to do business with communists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Li insisted the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people .
" Censor to protect rights ?
Someone remind me why we 're even dealing with these people ?
Oh yeah , wait .
Lots of money .
It 's pretty amazing how some people fear " socialism " here in the U.S. but are perfectly willing to do business with communists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" Li insisted the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people.
"


Censor to protect rights?
Someone remind me why we're even dealing with these people?
Oh yeah, wait.
Lots of money.
It's pretty amazing how some people fear "socialism" here in the U.S. but are perfectly willing to do business with communists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456864</id>
	<title>Re:Governments are the enemy of its people.</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1268389680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because government has a few useful purposes doesn't mean it's still not the enemy.  Take this very situation with China - China is the enemy (not just morally, but the fact that they want to dominate the world in every aspect and lie, cheat, steal, and kill to get there), but due to them giving us lots of money and cheap labor, we work with them.  The founders of the US realized that government is the enemy of the people and as such designed it to be HIGHLY controlled to try to prevent it from harming the people.  Unfortunately, they never counted on how fast corruption would spread through all branches of the government, thereby rendering their plans to protect the people useless.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, do you think Obama is your enemy? Do you think Harry Reid is your enemy? I don't agree with everything Obama does, but I generally feel he is trying to help the American people.</p></div><p>Yes, they are the enemy of every person who desires freedom and wants to be able to make their own choices.  If you think that they honestly want to help the American people, then you really need to start looking at the differences between what he <i>says</i> and what he <i>does</i>.  Every day Obama / Reid / Pelosi propose a new way to harm the American people and they count on the majority of people being uneducated enough to let it pass (which is another reason why nothing is ever done about the sad state of American schools, an educated populace is the enemy of the government).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Even if you do a character analysis of Bush (whose policies I generally hated), read his speeches, look at his actions and try to figure out who he really is, it's hard to claim that he wasn't at least trying to help out the American people.</p></div><p>Bush isn't the brightest and he did many immoral things, but yes, at least he genuinely thought he was doing the right thing (though he was wrong).  That's the difference though - if you look at Obama's attitude, he's well aware, with that smug grin and demanding that everyone simply do as he says, that he's not doing what's best for the American people, he's doing what's best for empowering the government and reshaping the US into the countries he idolizes (Cuba, USSR, China, etc - and if you look back at his previous comments, you'll see that he does in fact idolize ).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because government has a few useful purposes does n't mean it 's still not the enemy .
Take this very situation with China - China is the enemy ( not just morally , but the fact that they want to dominate the world in every aspect and lie , cheat , steal , and kill to get there ) , but due to them giving us lots of money and cheap labor , we work with them .
The founders of the US realized that government is the enemy of the people and as such designed it to be HIGHLY controlled to try to prevent it from harming the people .
Unfortunately , they never counted on how fast corruption would spread through all branches of the government , thereby rendering their plans to protect the people useless.Seriously , do you think Obama is your enemy ?
Do you think Harry Reid is your enemy ?
I do n't agree with everything Obama does , but I generally feel he is trying to help the American people.Yes , they are the enemy of every person who desires freedom and wants to be able to make their own choices .
If you think that they honestly want to help the American people , then you really need to start looking at the differences between what he says and what he does .
Every day Obama / Reid / Pelosi propose a new way to harm the American people and they count on the majority of people being uneducated enough to let it pass ( which is another reason why nothing is ever done about the sad state of American schools , an educated populace is the enemy of the government ) .Even if you do a character analysis of Bush ( whose policies I generally hated ) , read his speeches , look at his actions and try to figure out who he really is , it 's hard to claim that he was n't at least trying to help out the American people.Bush is n't the brightest and he did many immoral things , but yes , at least he genuinely thought he was doing the right thing ( though he was wrong ) .
That 's the difference though - if you look at Obama 's attitude , he 's well aware , with that smug grin and demanding that everyone simply do as he says , that he 's not doing what 's best for the American people , he 's doing what 's best for empowering the government and reshaping the US into the countries he idolizes ( Cuba , USSR , China , etc - and if you look back at his previous comments , you 'll see that he does in fact idolize ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because government has a few useful purposes doesn't mean it's still not the enemy.
Take this very situation with China - China is the enemy (not just morally, but the fact that they want to dominate the world in every aspect and lie, cheat, steal, and kill to get there), but due to them giving us lots of money and cheap labor, we work with them.
The founders of the US realized that government is the enemy of the people and as such designed it to be HIGHLY controlled to try to prevent it from harming the people.
Unfortunately, they never counted on how fast corruption would spread through all branches of the government, thereby rendering their plans to protect the people useless.Seriously, do you think Obama is your enemy?
Do you think Harry Reid is your enemy?
I don't agree with everything Obama does, but I generally feel he is trying to help the American people.Yes, they are the enemy of every person who desires freedom and wants to be able to make their own choices.
If you think that they honestly want to help the American people, then you really need to start looking at the differences between what he says and what he does.
Every day Obama / Reid / Pelosi propose a new way to harm the American people and they count on the majority of people being uneducated enough to let it pass (which is another reason why nothing is ever done about the sad state of American schools, an educated populace is the enemy of the government).Even if you do a character analysis of Bush (whose policies I generally hated), read his speeches, look at his actions and try to figure out who he really is, it's hard to claim that he wasn't at least trying to help out the American people.Bush isn't the brightest and he did many immoral things, but yes, at least he genuinely thought he was doing the right thing (though he was wrong).
That's the difference though - if you look at Obama's attitude, he's well aware, with that smug grin and demanding that everyone simply do as he says, that he's not doing what's best for the American people, he's doing what's best for empowering the government and reshaping the US into the countries he idolizes (Cuba, USSR, China, etc - and if you look back at his previous comments, you'll see that he does in fact idolize ).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455736</id>
	<title>Re:All of you are part of the problem</title>
	<author>Stormwatch</author>
	<datestamp>1268385000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Blame Richard Nixon. He should never have gone to China.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blame Richard Nixon .
He should never have gone to China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blame Richard Nixon.
He should never have gone to China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455452</id>
	<title>Re:Governments are the enemy of its people.</title>
	<author>Gitcho</author>
	<datestamp>1268427060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>something tells me this is not how you behave to your wife<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>something tells me this is not how you behave to your wife .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>something tells me this is not how you behave to your wife ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456888</id>
	<title>Re:All of you are part of the problem</title>
	<author>ianare</author>
	<datestamp>1268389800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What, do you really expect us to do something that would <i>personally inconvenience</i> us, like having to pay more for cheap shit ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What , do you really expect us to do something that would personally inconvenience us , like having to pay more for cheap shit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, do you really expect us to do something that would personally inconvenience us, like having to pay more for cheap shit ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456862</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit.</title>
	<author>Sir\_Sri</author>
	<datestamp>1268389680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why would the chinese particularly care about what a guy who died 34 years ago might have actually done?  Does it meaningfully change what policies they should have today?  Does it change economic or job growth predictions?</p><p>And why do you think Li is a thug exactly?  Every government censors content to protect the rights of a country and it's people, they may do, to varying degrees, a worse or better job of it, but the government decides what is illegal, and companies are expected to not show you illegal content.  "publication bans" "ratings" "film classification board" "classified" etc. are all to some degree forms of censorship.</p><p>How much of what Gerald Ford did is still under lock and key?  And how do you know, until they take it out from under lock and key?</p><p>You and the government of china may disagree on what effects the rights of china and the chinese people, but their censorship vs anyone elses is a matter of degree.  They have decided that political instability is not worth the 'truth' or that the 'truth' should be buried, but not completely.  See the PRC lets thousands if not millions of chinese leave the country and then come back every year, and they go places where there is less censorship, yet still it doesn't seem like they're shocked and all try and start a revolution over it.  They need a small army of people to police things which are censored, and again, they obviously know what is being censored and yet aren't starting a revolution about it.  So I fail to see the great outrage over china censoring things 30 years old.  One would I think have a better argument with their current environmental, corruption and pro democracy protests.  Those at least actually mean something right now, and people might care about it today.  Whether or not a guy who died 34 years ago killed more or less people than a guy who died 62 years ago is somewhat less important to people who may wish to change how the country is run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why would the chinese particularly care about what a guy who died 34 years ago might have actually done ?
Does it meaningfully change what policies they should have today ?
Does it change economic or job growth predictions ? And why do you think Li is a thug exactly ?
Every government censors content to protect the rights of a country and it 's people , they may do , to varying degrees , a worse or better job of it , but the government decides what is illegal , and companies are expected to not show you illegal content .
" publication bans " " ratings " " film classification board " " classified " etc .
are all to some degree forms of censorship.How much of what Gerald Ford did is still under lock and key ?
And how do you know , until they take it out from under lock and key ? You and the government of china may disagree on what effects the rights of china and the chinese people , but their censorship vs anyone elses is a matter of degree .
They have decided that political instability is not worth the 'truth ' or that the 'truth ' should be buried , but not completely .
See the PRC lets thousands if not millions of chinese leave the country and then come back every year , and they go places where there is less censorship , yet still it does n't seem like they 're shocked and all try and start a revolution over it .
They need a small army of people to police things which are censored , and again , they obviously know what is being censored and yet are n't starting a revolution about it .
So I fail to see the great outrage over china censoring things 30 years old .
One would I think have a better argument with their current environmental , corruption and pro democracy protests .
Those at least actually mean something right now , and people might care about it today .
Whether or not a guy who died 34 years ago killed more or less people than a guy who died 62 years ago is somewhat less important to people who may wish to change how the country is run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why would the chinese particularly care about what a guy who died 34 years ago might have actually done?
Does it meaningfully change what policies they should have today?
Does it change economic or job growth predictions?And why do you think Li is a thug exactly?
Every government censors content to protect the rights of a country and it's people, they may do, to varying degrees, a worse or better job of it, but the government decides what is illegal, and companies are expected to not show you illegal content.
"publication bans" "ratings" "film classification board" "classified" etc.
are all to some degree forms of censorship.How much of what Gerald Ford did is still under lock and key?
And how do you know, until they take it out from under lock and key?You and the government of china may disagree on what effects the rights of china and the chinese people, but their censorship vs anyone elses is a matter of degree.
They have decided that political instability is not worth the 'truth' or that the 'truth' should be buried, but not completely.
See the PRC lets thousands if not millions of chinese leave the country and then come back every year, and they go places where there is less censorship, yet still it doesn't seem like they're shocked and all try and start a revolution over it.
They need a small army of people to police things which are censored, and again, they obviously know what is being censored and yet aren't starting a revolution about it.
So I fail to see the great outrage over china censoring things 30 years old.
One would I think have a better argument with their current environmental, corruption and pro democracy protests.
Those at least actually mean something right now, and people might care about it today.
Whether or not a guy who died 34 years ago killed more or less people than a guy who died 62 years ago is somewhat less important to people who may wish to change how the country is run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455300</id>
	<title>Re:Game of Chicken</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268426460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How are the Chinese government officials going to find the objectionable content if they can't Google it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How are the Chinese government officials going to find the objectionable content if they ca n't Google it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How are the Chinese government officials going to find the objectionable content if they can't Google it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455050</id>
	<title>Re:Game of Chicken</title>
	<author>hondo77</author>
	<datestamp>1268425440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google surely gets a lot of revenue from all the non-China markets, too. The question is: how much revenue is enough? I'm thinking that China and Google can become quite prosperous without each other.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google surely gets a lot of revenue from all the non-China markets , too .
The question is : how much revenue is enough ?
I 'm thinking that China and Google can become quite prosperous without each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google surely gets a lot of revenue from all the non-China markets, too.
The question is: how much revenue is enough?
I'm thinking that China and Google can become quite prosperous without each other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455742</id>
	<title>Re:See, this is what i was talking about</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1268385060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When in a field of nettle, even a dead Lotus flower looks beautiful.
<br> <br>
It doesn't matter if other companies (American or otherwise) will or won't suck up to China. What matters is that there are some companies, hell, even one company that won't.
<br> <br>
It didn't matter that most physicists considered time to be static in the early 1900's, all it took was one (Einstein) to say otherwise to have an impact.
<br> <br>
So sure, wallow in your apathetic complacency and pretend like you are enlightened for doing so. In the mean time, the folk that work at Google are actually wrestling with ethical dilemmas instead of shrugging their shoulders and saying, effectively, "Meh, fuck it, the world's a shitty place and I don't want to deal with it." For that, they earn my respect. You, sir, however, do not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When in a field of nettle , even a dead Lotus flower looks beautiful .
It does n't matter if other companies ( American or otherwise ) will or wo n't suck up to China .
What matters is that there are some companies , hell , even one company that wo n't .
It did n't matter that most physicists considered time to be static in the early 1900 's , all it took was one ( Einstein ) to say otherwise to have an impact .
So sure , wallow in your apathetic complacency and pretend like you are enlightened for doing so .
In the mean time , the folk that work at Google are actually wrestling with ethical dilemmas instead of shrugging their shoulders and saying , effectively , " Meh , fuck it , the world 's a shitty place and I do n't want to deal with it .
" For that , they earn my respect .
You , sir , however , do not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When in a field of nettle, even a dead Lotus flower looks beautiful.
It doesn't matter if other companies (American or otherwise) will or won't suck up to China.
What matters is that there are some companies, hell, even one company that won't.
It didn't matter that most physicists considered time to be static in the early 1900's, all it took was one (Einstein) to say otherwise to have an impact.
So sure, wallow in your apathetic complacency and pretend like you are enlightened for doing so.
In the mean time, the folk that work at Google are actually wrestling with ethical dilemmas instead of shrugging their shoulders and saying, effectively, "Meh, fuck it, the world's a shitty place and I don't want to deal with it.
" For that, they earn my respect.
You, sir, however, do not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455992</id>
	<title>Re:Li is Right.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268386200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the Chinese people don't have the cajones to stand up and fight for their own freedom, they get what they deserve, censorship and repression.</p><p>You can't free people that don't want to be free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the Chinese people do n't have the cajones to stand up and fight for their own freedom , they get what they deserve , censorship and repression.You ca n't free people that do n't want to be free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the Chinese people don't have the cajones to stand up and fight for their own freedom, they get what they deserve, censorship and repression.You can't free people that don't want to be free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456198</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268387100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agree. The only thing worse than some tyrant in the capital is some tyrannical little thug in your face every day with the power of government behind him. You think a local elected sheriff can have power go to his head? Think about that local district party leader who can have you and your whole family killed or sent to prison without trial. There is NOTHING that terrifies such people more than their populace communicating freely and openly with each other about what their leaders are doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agree .
The only thing worse than some tyrant in the capital is some tyrannical little thug in your face every day with the power of government behind him .
You think a local elected sheriff can have power go to his head ?
Think about that local district party leader who can have you and your whole family killed or sent to prison without trial .
There is NOTHING that terrifies such people more than their populace communicating freely and openly with each other about what their leaders are doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agree.
The only thing worse than some tyrant in the capital is some tyrannical little thug in your face every day with the power of government behind him.
You think a local elected sheriff can have power go to his head?
Think about that local district party leader who can have you and your whole family killed or sent to prison without trial.
There is NOTHING that terrifies such people more than their populace communicating freely and openly with each other about what their leaders are doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455100</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31459262</id>
	<title>Re:Li is Right.</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1268400060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Before I get modded troll, consider he does actually have a point. Openness and free exchange of information are serious threats to social stability in China (which is, as others have pointed out, what Google does best). China watched the fall of the Soviet Union as a result of glasnost and perestroika.</p></div><p>Which is why all Warsaw Pact states were similarly crippled in the process of transitioning from Soviet authoritarian communism to capitalist democracy... er...</p><p>See, the problem with the social instability that followed the fall of the USSR was not at all with such perestroika policies as more openness/freedom ("glasnost"). It largely had to do with extreme economic policies that started under Gorbachev and proceeded in full force under Yeltsin.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before I get modded troll , consider he does actually have a point .
Openness and free exchange of information are serious threats to social stability in China ( which is , as others have pointed out , what Google does best ) .
China watched the fall of the Soviet Union as a result of glasnost and perestroika.Which is why all Warsaw Pact states were similarly crippled in the process of transitioning from Soviet authoritarian communism to capitalist democracy... er...See , the problem with the social instability that followed the fall of the USSR was not at all with such perestroika policies as more openness/freedom ( " glasnost " ) .
It largely had to do with extreme economic policies that started under Gorbachev and proceeded in full force under Yeltsin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before I get modded troll, consider he does actually have a point.
Openness and free exchange of information are serious threats to social stability in China (which is, as others have pointed out, what Google does best).
China watched the fall of the Soviet Union as a result of glasnost and perestroika.Which is why all Warsaw Pact states were similarly crippled in the process of transitioning from Soviet authoritarian communism to capitalist democracy... er...See, the problem with the social instability that followed the fall of the USSR was not at all with such perestroika policies as more openness/freedom ("glasnost").
It largely had to do with extreme economic policies that started under Gorbachev and proceeded in full force under Yeltsin.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31458824</id>
	<title>Re:Game of Chicken</title>
	<author>Toddlerbob</author>
	<datestamp>1268398200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've thought for a while that the ejection of Facebook, the probably ejection of Google, etc., is all  part of a face-saving Kabuki to give Chinese companies room to grow, now that Facebook and Google have proved the utility of their respective functions to large groups of people.

</p><p>For example, without Facebook as competition, such functional facebook clones like 51.com, xiaonei.com, and chinaren.com are growing quickly, keeping both the service and the economic benefits of the Facebook idea within China's borders in a classic case of economic protectionism. Yes, the government can exert more direct control over them than they could over facebook, but at this point, that's kind of the icing on the cake.

</p><p>Without Google as competition, Baidu (www.baidu.com) has that much more room to grow and take more tech jobs from the Indian economy and give them to Chinese.  Yes, the government can censor more, but again, that's icing on the cake, since there are many other ways to maintain censorship and manage the population. Simply keeping things in the Chinese language and managing the traditional media go a long ways towards maintaining such control anyway, automatically excluding foreign ideas while keeping the frames (and therefore the conclusions) of major debates under control. Such a condition is not "censorship" in the strict use of that word, but this is the system used by Western governments to control discourse, even though they lack the self-isolating features of the Chinese language, so there's no reason why it shouldn't work here in China.

</p><p>Examples of Western "censorship" can be found at sites like www.projectcensored.org, by the way. My point, then, is that, while censorship is important to the government, there's more than one way to accomplish it. There is only one way to provide economic protectionism, which is to divert more economic activity to local businesses, whether that be through tariffs, governmental spending, or what have you. Therefore, economic protectionism seems to me a primary reason for this kerfluffle, even though censorship may, of course, remain as a secondary reason.

</p><p>This Google exclusion is all of a piece with the general economic protectionism with which China has been irritating ideologically "free market" types for a long time.

</p><p>The current arguments over principle, then, can be viewed as a dramatically-colored veneer allowing both sides to save ideological face when the inevitable market protectionism takes place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've thought for a while that the ejection of Facebook , the probably ejection of Google , etc. , is all part of a face-saving Kabuki to give Chinese companies room to grow , now that Facebook and Google have proved the utility of their respective functions to large groups of people .
For example , without Facebook as competition , such functional facebook clones like 51.com , xiaonei.com , and chinaren.com are growing quickly , keeping both the service and the economic benefits of the Facebook idea within China 's borders in a classic case of economic protectionism .
Yes , the government can exert more direct control over them than they could over facebook , but at this point , that 's kind of the icing on the cake .
Without Google as competition , Baidu ( www.baidu.com ) has that much more room to grow and take more tech jobs from the Indian economy and give them to Chinese .
Yes , the government can censor more , but again , that 's icing on the cake , since there are many other ways to maintain censorship and manage the population .
Simply keeping things in the Chinese language and managing the traditional media go a long ways towards maintaining such control anyway , automatically excluding foreign ideas while keeping the frames ( and therefore the conclusions ) of major debates under control .
Such a condition is not " censorship " in the strict use of that word , but this is the system used by Western governments to control discourse , even though they lack the self-isolating features of the Chinese language , so there 's no reason why it should n't work here in China .
Examples of Western " censorship " can be found at sites like www.projectcensored.org , by the way .
My point , then , is that , while censorship is important to the government , there 's more than one way to accomplish it .
There is only one way to provide economic protectionism , which is to divert more economic activity to local businesses , whether that be through tariffs , governmental spending , or what have you .
Therefore , economic protectionism seems to me a primary reason for this kerfluffle , even though censorship may , of course , remain as a secondary reason .
This Google exclusion is all of a piece with the general economic protectionism with which China has been irritating ideologically " free market " types for a long time .
The current arguments over principle , then , can be viewed as a dramatically-colored veneer allowing both sides to save ideological face when the inevitable market protectionism takes place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've thought for a while that the ejection of Facebook, the probably ejection of Google, etc., is all  part of a face-saving Kabuki to give Chinese companies room to grow, now that Facebook and Google have proved the utility of their respective functions to large groups of people.
For example, without Facebook as competition, such functional facebook clones like 51.com, xiaonei.com, and chinaren.com are growing quickly, keeping both the service and the economic benefits of the Facebook idea within China's borders in a classic case of economic protectionism.
Yes, the government can exert more direct control over them than they could over facebook, but at this point, that's kind of the icing on the cake.
Without Google as competition, Baidu (www.baidu.com) has that much more room to grow and take more tech jobs from the Indian economy and give them to Chinese.
Yes, the government can censor more, but again, that's icing on the cake, since there are many other ways to maintain censorship and manage the population.
Simply keeping things in the Chinese language and managing the traditional media go a long ways towards maintaining such control anyway, automatically excluding foreign ideas while keeping the frames (and therefore the conclusions) of major debates under control.
Such a condition is not "censorship" in the strict use of that word, but this is the system used by Western governments to control discourse, even though they lack the self-isolating features of the Chinese language, so there's no reason why it shouldn't work here in China.
Examples of Western "censorship" can be found at sites like www.projectcensored.org, by the way.
My point, then, is that, while censorship is important to the government, there's more than one way to accomplish it.
There is only one way to provide economic protectionism, which is to divert more economic activity to local businesses, whether that be through tariffs, governmental spending, or what have you.
Therefore, economic protectionism seems to me a primary reason for this kerfluffle, even though censorship may, of course, remain as a secondary reason.
This Google exclusion is all of a piece with the general economic protectionism with which China has been irritating ideologically "free market" types for a long time.
The current arguments over principle, then, can be viewed as a dramatically-colored veneer allowing both sides to save ideological face when the inevitable market protectionism takes place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456234</id>
	<title>Re:Li is Right.</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1268387220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>parent is not bad</p><p>let us try this,</p><p>national sovereignity is rare but important in modern history, say 1400 to present.  chinese leadership certainly talks about protecting chinese national sovereignity and IMO their concerns are justified.</p><p>so let us consider the idea that censorship protects sovereignity for china.  Is Google doing evil in allowing censorship?</p><p>a little more generally, if china is a republic, and we are a republic, what should govern our national relationships?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>parent is not badlet us try this,national sovereignity is rare but important in modern history , say 1400 to present .
chinese leadership certainly talks about protecting chinese national sovereignity and IMO their concerns are justified.so let us consider the idea that censorship protects sovereignity for china .
Is Google doing evil in allowing censorship ? a little more generally , if china is a republic , and we are a republic , what should govern our national relationships ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>parent is not badlet us try this,national sovereignity is rare but important in modern history, say 1400 to present.
chinese leadership certainly talks about protecting chinese national sovereignity and IMO their concerns are justified.so let us consider the idea that censorship protects sovereignity for china.
Is Google doing evil in allowing censorship?a little more generally, if china is a republic, and we are a republic, what should govern our national relationships?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455586</id>
	<title>Re:Bullshit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268384400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> is that the Chinese government is scared to death of what might happen to the party minions when ordinary Chinese realize that Mao killed more of them than Tojo.</p></div><p>It's not actually that simple, Mao didn't kill millions, the ordinary Chinese did.  They did it to please Mao.  China never had a huge secret police to keep the people in line like Russia did, in China it was the people keeping each other in line.  The people abused and harassed the ones who dissented.  They know what was happening in China at the time because they were the ones doing it.  Mao manipulated their 'righteous' anger, but if they end up condemning Mao, they are only condemning themselves. If you talk to Chinese people now, they seem to look back on the cultural revolution as a time of silliness (by everyone), and China is better now.<br> <br>
BUT the Chinese government still doesn't have a strong secret police, and they still use the people as their main weapon.  Remember the protests/boycotts against Carrefour at the time of the olympics?  They were manipulated to do that by the government, using similar techniques to those of Mao.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>is that the Chinese government is scared to death of what might happen to the party minions when ordinary Chinese realize that Mao killed more of them than Tojo.It 's not actually that simple , Mao did n't kill millions , the ordinary Chinese did .
They did it to please Mao .
China never had a huge secret police to keep the people in line like Russia did , in China it was the people keeping each other in line .
The people abused and harassed the ones who dissented .
They know what was happening in China at the time because they were the ones doing it .
Mao manipulated their 'righteous ' anger , but if they end up condemning Mao , they are only condemning themselves .
If you talk to Chinese people now , they seem to look back on the cultural revolution as a time of silliness ( by everyone ) , and China is better now .
BUT the Chinese government still does n't have a strong secret police , and they still use the people as their main weapon .
Remember the protests/boycotts against Carrefour at the time of the olympics ?
They were manipulated to do that by the government , using similar techniques to those of Mao .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> is that the Chinese government is scared to death of what might happen to the party minions when ordinary Chinese realize that Mao killed more of them than Tojo.It's not actually that simple, Mao didn't kill millions, the ordinary Chinese did.
They did it to please Mao.
China never had a huge secret police to keep the people in line like Russia did, in China it was the people keeping each other in line.
The people abused and harassed the ones who dissented.
They know what was happening in China at the time because they were the ones doing it.
Mao manipulated their 'righteous' anger, but if they end up condemning Mao, they are only condemning themselves.
If you talk to Chinese people now, they seem to look back on the cultural revolution as a time of silliness (by everyone), and China is better now.
BUT the Chinese government still doesn't have a strong secret police, and they still use the people as their main weapon.
Remember the protests/boycotts against Carrefour at the time of the olympics?
They were manipulated to do that by the government, using similar techniques to those of Mao.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455910</id>
	<title>Who's fault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268385780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China was an weak sleeping dragon awakened by US. In the beginning, it obeyed its masters order and master rewarded it for that. Now that it has gained its strength, it is about to strike and the master is worried but can't do anything. BTW, the master has awaken at least one more monster of jihadi muslims.</p><p>In short, China's industry can now survive and even grow without Google and it gives a damn if Google or any other company wants to leave China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China was an weak sleeping dragon awakened by US .
In the beginning , it obeyed its masters order and master rewarded it for that .
Now that it has gained its strength , it is about to strike and the master is worried but ca n't do anything .
BTW , the master has awaken at least one more monster of jihadi muslims.In short , China 's industry can now survive and even grow without Google and it gives a damn if Google or any other company wants to leave China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China was an weak sleeping dragon awakened by US.
In the beginning, it obeyed its masters order and master rewarded it for that.
Now that it has gained its strength, it is about to strike and the master is worried but can't do anything.
BTW, the master has awaken at least one more monster of jihadi muslims.In short, China's industry can now survive and even grow without Google and it gives a damn if Google or any other company wants to leave China.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456258</id>
	<title>translation</title>
	<author>bugi</author>
	<datestamp>1268387280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the fullness of time, after suitable reflection, we thank you for your interest but must politely suggest that it would be best we part ways.</p><p>Translation:</p><p>Now that we've had time to verify we got everything we wanted from hacking you, we fell comfortable telling you to get lost and die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the fullness of time , after suitable reflection , we thank you for your interest but must politely suggest that it would be best we part ways.Translation : Now that we 've had time to verify we got everything we wanted from hacking you , we fell comfortable telling you to get lost and die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the fullness of time, after suitable reflection, we thank you for your interest but must politely suggest that it would be best we part ways.Translation:Now that we've had time to verify we got everything we wanted from hacking you, we fell comfortable telling you to get lost and die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456336</id>
	<title>Re:Game of Chicken</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268387640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google for Peons (censored)  vs.   Google for Party Officials (non-censored)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google for Peons ( censored ) vs. Google for Party Officials ( non-censored )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google for Peons (censored)  vs.   Google for Party Officials (non-censored)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455664</id>
	<title>Re:Game of Chicken</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1268384760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>google can easily continue to do business in china with or without their approval. It's a matter of the US standing up the protect them if necessary. Global (internet based) companies cannot simply be "removed" or "prevented" from a market. Look at our releasing of sanctions in countries recently for an example of the futility if china were to try to block google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>google can easily continue to do business in china with or without their approval .
It 's a matter of the US standing up the protect them if necessary .
Global ( internet based ) companies can not simply be " removed " or " prevented " from a market .
Look at our releasing of sanctions in countries recently for an example of the futility if china were to try to block google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>google can easily continue to do business in china with or without their approval.
It's a matter of the US standing up the protect them if necessary.
Global (internet based) companies cannot simply be "removed" or "prevented" from a market.
Look at our releasing of sanctions in countries recently for an example of the futility if china were to try to block google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455240</id>
	<title>Li is Right.</title>
	<author>vampire\_baozi</author>
	<datestamp>1268426220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before I get modded troll, consider he does actually have a point.  Openness and free exchange of information are serious threats to social stability in China (which is, as others have pointed out, what Google does best).  China watched the fall of the Soviet Union as a result of glasnost and perestroika.  They are eager to avoid the same mistake, as the costs of social instability (both human and economic) would be far too high, for the country, its people, and not least themselves.</p><p>This isn't about Tiananmen or the Great Leap Forward, which are pretty much open secrets.  It's about suppressing free flow of information, and maintaining control over all mediums of information exchange.  They had control of the traditional media, phones, SMS, etc.  The internet is another beast.  Finding out and sharing information about corruption and other major shortfalls is far too easy with an open, uncensored internet.  They don't want peasants knowing too much about local corruption, and when they do know, they don't want them to be able to organize or share this information.  Censorship is a key component; allowing criticism of the government even on such now-unimportant bygones as the Great Leap Forward would potentially open the floodgates on new criticism on issues that could result in instability.</p><p>So, Li is right.  In order to suppress dissent, they must maintain control and continue censoring.  Whether you think the cost imposed by censorship and lack of free speech is greater than the potential losses from any resulting social instability is another matter entirely.  Many Chinese think, and I often agree, that while the Chinese government is too sensitive right now, maintaining a stable environment for economic growth is a bigger priority than free speech.  The farmers I talked to in Shandong and Jilin also agreed- they know they're getting shafted in comparison to urban dwellers, but they're still doing better than at any time in history, and would rather not lose their chance at a new fridge, air conditioning, and a TV in return for some abstract ideas about freedom to criticize the government.  In their minds, censorship and its evils are the lesser evil, when compared to potential civil strife.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before I get modded troll , consider he does actually have a point .
Openness and free exchange of information are serious threats to social stability in China ( which is , as others have pointed out , what Google does best ) .
China watched the fall of the Soviet Union as a result of glasnost and perestroika .
They are eager to avoid the same mistake , as the costs of social instability ( both human and economic ) would be far too high , for the country , its people , and not least themselves.This is n't about Tiananmen or the Great Leap Forward , which are pretty much open secrets .
It 's about suppressing free flow of information , and maintaining control over all mediums of information exchange .
They had control of the traditional media , phones , SMS , etc .
The internet is another beast .
Finding out and sharing information about corruption and other major shortfalls is far too easy with an open , uncensored internet .
They do n't want peasants knowing too much about local corruption , and when they do know , they do n't want them to be able to organize or share this information .
Censorship is a key component ; allowing criticism of the government even on such now-unimportant bygones as the Great Leap Forward would potentially open the floodgates on new criticism on issues that could result in instability.So , Li is right .
In order to suppress dissent , they must maintain control and continue censoring .
Whether you think the cost imposed by censorship and lack of free speech is greater than the potential losses from any resulting social instability is another matter entirely .
Many Chinese think , and I often agree , that while the Chinese government is too sensitive right now , maintaining a stable environment for economic growth is a bigger priority than free speech .
The farmers I talked to in Shandong and Jilin also agreed- they know they 're getting shafted in comparison to urban dwellers , but they 're still doing better than at any time in history , and would rather not lose their chance at a new fridge , air conditioning , and a TV in return for some abstract ideas about freedom to criticize the government .
In their minds , censorship and its evils are the lesser evil , when compared to potential civil strife .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before I get modded troll, consider he does actually have a point.
Openness and free exchange of information are serious threats to social stability in China (which is, as others have pointed out, what Google does best).
China watched the fall of the Soviet Union as a result of glasnost and perestroika.
They are eager to avoid the same mistake, as the costs of social instability (both human and economic) would be far too high, for the country, its people, and not least themselves.This isn't about Tiananmen or the Great Leap Forward, which are pretty much open secrets.
It's about suppressing free flow of information, and maintaining control over all mediums of information exchange.
They had control of the traditional media, phones, SMS, etc.
The internet is another beast.
Finding out and sharing information about corruption and other major shortfalls is far too easy with an open, uncensored internet.
They don't want peasants knowing too much about local corruption, and when they do know, they don't want them to be able to organize or share this information.
Censorship is a key component; allowing criticism of the government even on such now-unimportant bygones as the Great Leap Forward would potentially open the floodgates on new criticism on issues that could result in instability.So, Li is right.
In order to suppress dissent, they must maintain control and continue censoring.
Whether you think the cost imposed by censorship and lack of free speech is greater than the potential losses from any resulting social instability is another matter entirely.
Many Chinese think, and I often agree, that while the Chinese government is too sensitive right now, maintaining a stable environment for economic growth is a bigger priority than free speech.
The farmers I talked to in Shandong and Jilin also agreed- they know they're getting shafted in comparison to urban dwellers, but they're still doing better than at any time in history, and would rather not lose their chance at a new fridge, air conditioning, and a TV in return for some abstract ideas about freedom to criticize the government.
In their minds, censorship and its evils are the lesser evil, when compared to potential civil strife.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455332</id>
	<title>BUMP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268426580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And one would think that Apple, with its high profit margins, would be able to manufacture its products somewhere else more civilized than China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And one would think that Apple , with its high profit margins , would be able to manufacture its products somewhere else more civilized than China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And one would think that Apple, with its high profit margins, would be able to manufacture its products somewhere else more civilized than China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455920</id>
	<title>China finally admits the truth hurts!</title>
	<author>kawabago</author>
	<datestamp>1268385900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A free press protects the people from their government.  Censorship protects the government from the free press. If the government of China really does have the best interests of it's people at heart then it would not have to use censorship to prevent it's failures from being brought to the attention of it's people. People don't need their government to protect them from porn or hate propaganda, people are amazingly good at doing this themselves. The government of China might as well say the moon is made of cheese, it would be just as true as claiming they need to protect their people from imaginary harm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A free press protects the people from their government .
Censorship protects the government from the free press .
If the government of China really does have the best interests of it 's people at heart then it would not have to use censorship to prevent it 's failures from being brought to the attention of it 's people .
People do n't need their government to protect them from porn or hate propaganda , people are amazingly good at doing this themselves .
The government of China might as well say the moon is made of cheese , it would be just as true as claiming they need to protect their people from imaginary harm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A free press protects the people from their government.
Censorship protects the government from the free press.
If the government of China really does have the best interests of it's people at heart then it would not have to use censorship to prevent it's failures from being brought to the attention of it's people.
People don't need their government to protect them from porn or hate propaganda, people are amazingly good at doing this themselves.
The government of China might as well say the moon is made of cheese, it would be just as true as claiming they need to protect their people from imaginary harm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455102</id>
	<title>Re:Governments are the enemy of its people.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268425560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yay absolutism!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yay absolutism !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yay absolutism!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455264</id>
	<title>Yeah but China could be rickrolled</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1268426280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firewalls can work in both directions.</p><p>The rest of the world (organized through ICANN, say) could impose sanctions on China for unreasonable restriction of trade.</p><p>Specifically, it could impose limits on routing from China to the rest of the Internet, perhaps replacing all outside content with<br>this: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firewalls can work in both directions.The rest of the world ( organized through ICANN , say ) could impose sanctions on China for unreasonable restriction of trade.Specifically , it could impose limits on routing from China to the rest of the Internet , perhaps replacing all outside content withthis : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = oHg5SJYRHA0 [ youtube.com ]  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firewalls can work in both directions.The rest of the world (organized through ICANN, say) could impose sanctions on China for unreasonable restriction of trade.Specifically, it could impose limits on routing from China to the rest of the Internet, perhaps replacing all outside content withthis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0 [youtube.com]
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31462200</id>
	<title>Good...</title>
	<author>denmarkw00t</author>
	<datestamp>1268510520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get Google out of China and push them into North Korea, please! I want to see:</p><p>Google<br>Search: calc 39<br>Results - 1-20 of about 1</p><p>Google Calculator (learn more):<br>
&nbsp; 1. The Golf score of Kim Jong-il's first game of golf (11 holes in one!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get Google out of China and push them into North Korea , please !
I want to see : GoogleSearch : calc 39Results - 1-20 of about 1Google Calculator ( learn more ) :   1 .
The Golf score of Kim Jong-il 's first game of golf ( 11 holes in one !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get Google out of China and push them into North Korea, please!
I want to see:GoogleSearch: calc 39Results - 1-20 of about 1Google Calculator (learn more):
  1.
The Golf score of Kim Jong-il's first game of golf (11 holes in one!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31460452</id>
	<title>Easy solution.</title>
	<author>YankDownUnder</author>
	<datestamp>1268406900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Completely pull out of China. Close all doors. Develope business elsewhere - regardless of "future profit".
End of story. Matter of fact, kill China in DNS altogether and isolate them. They want to develop for "their internet", well, fine and dandy. Let them have their own internet - INSIDE their country. Let'em stew with that for five years and then re-think the terms in which to do international business and conduct international trade and communications.

This is no longer the dark ages, my "Workers for China" mates.

Too bad that most of the powerful governments can't stop the "play softly" approach because they're afraid of loosing business or profits. The reality of the situation is that if the Chinese government is NOT slapped back down to humble status, they're going to continue to abuse not only human rights overall, and violate the rights of individuals and groups within China, they're going to continue on this silly child's game of "forcing" their will and ways upon the rest of the world. And I'm sorry on that one - I don't like to be "forced" to do anything, let alone have some silly childish government (or really, wanna-be-government) enforce their policies on me, my mind or my spirit.

All the big dogs - Google, Microsoft, yadda yadda yadda - should learn that profits WILL come, and markets WILL be nurtured - don't play into these types of games by threat - or whatever. Time is the answer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Completely pull out of China .
Close all doors .
Develope business elsewhere - regardless of " future profit " .
End of story .
Matter of fact , kill China in DNS altogether and isolate them .
They want to develop for " their internet " , well , fine and dandy .
Let them have their own internet - INSIDE their country .
Let'em stew with that for five years and then re-think the terms in which to do international business and conduct international trade and communications .
This is no longer the dark ages , my " Workers for China " mates .
Too bad that most of the powerful governments ca n't stop the " play softly " approach because they 're afraid of loosing business or profits .
The reality of the situation is that if the Chinese government is NOT slapped back down to humble status , they 're going to continue to abuse not only human rights overall , and violate the rights of individuals and groups within China , they 're going to continue on this silly child 's game of " forcing " their will and ways upon the rest of the world .
And I 'm sorry on that one - I do n't like to be " forced " to do anything , let alone have some silly childish government ( or really , wan na-be-government ) enforce their policies on me , my mind or my spirit .
All the big dogs - Google , Microsoft , yadda yadda yadda - should learn that profits WILL come , and markets WILL be nurtured - do n't play into these types of games by threat - or whatever .
Time is the answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Completely pull out of China.
Close all doors.
Develope business elsewhere - regardless of "future profit".
End of story.
Matter of fact, kill China in DNS altogether and isolate them.
They want to develop for "their internet", well, fine and dandy.
Let them have their own internet - INSIDE their country.
Let'em stew with that for five years and then re-think the terms in which to do international business and conduct international trade and communications.
This is no longer the dark ages, my "Workers for China" mates.
Too bad that most of the powerful governments can't stop the "play softly" approach because they're afraid of loosing business or profits.
The reality of the situation is that if the Chinese government is NOT slapped back down to humble status, they're going to continue to abuse not only human rights overall, and violate the rights of individuals and groups within China, they're going to continue on this silly child's game of "forcing" their will and ways upon the rest of the world.
And I'm sorry on that one - I don't like to be "forced" to do anything, let alone have some silly childish government (or really, wanna-be-government) enforce their policies on me, my mind or my spirit.
All the big dogs - Google, Microsoft, yadda yadda yadda - should learn that profits WILL come, and markets WILL be nurtured - don't play into these types of games by threat - or whatever.
Time is the answer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454794</id>
	<title>Sure buddy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268424360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mr. Google:<br>Before leaving, please deploy a transparent, ubiquitous distributed darknet app. I just know you're sitting on one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr. Google : Before leaving , please deploy a transparent , ubiquitous distributed darknet app .
I just know you 're sitting on one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr. Google:Before leaving, please deploy a transparent, ubiquitous distributed darknet app.
I just know you're sitting on one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454896</id>
	<title>Good For Them</title>
	<author>warncke</author>
	<datestamp>1268424900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why should any country grant an exemption from their law in response to the threats of a corporation.  Only in the U.S. would such an idiotic proposal be taken seriously.  China's censorship may suck, but they shouldn't grant any corporation a special exemption from it in response to threats.  It isn't like there isn't any censorship in the U.S.  DMCA take down?  Ring a bell?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should any country grant an exemption from their law in response to the threats of a corporation .
Only in the U.S. would such an idiotic proposal be taken seriously .
China 's censorship may suck , but they should n't grant any corporation a special exemption from it in response to threats .
It is n't like there is n't any censorship in the U.S. DMCA take down ?
Ring a bell ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should any country grant an exemption from their law in response to the threats of a corporation.
Only in the U.S. would such an idiotic proposal be taken seriously.
China's censorship may suck, but they shouldn't grant any corporation a special exemption from it in response to threats.
It isn't like there isn't any censorship in the U.S.  DMCA take down?
Ring a bell?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455896</id>
	<title>Re:All of you are part of the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268385720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do what I do then.  Invest in Chinese companies and funds.  Half my 401K is set up like this and amazing they are paying MUCH higher dividends than any US companies or funds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do what I do then .
Invest in Chinese companies and funds .
Half my 401K is set up like this and amazing they are paying MUCH higher dividends than any US companies or funds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do what I do then.
Invest in Chinese companies and funds.
Half my 401K is set up like this and amazing they are paying MUCH higher dividends than any US companies or funds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454898</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454812</id>
	<title>Sure...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268424420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..and if we want your data, we'll take it and you'll like it.  Seems Google found someone more evil than them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..and if we want your data , we 'll take it and you 'll like it .
Seems Google found someone more evil than them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..and if we want your data, we'll take it and you'll like it.
Seems Google found someone more evil than them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457372</id>
	<title>Oh my!</title>
	<author>Un pobre guey</author>
	<datestamp>1268391600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm so surprised! A sovereign nation with an authoritarian government insists that foreign companies abide by its laws! Who woulda thunk...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm so surprised !
A sovereign nation with an authoritarian government insists that foreign companies abide by its laws !
Who woulda thunk.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm so surprised!
A sovereign nation with an authoritarian government insists that foreign companies abide by its laws!
Who woulda thunk...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457212</id>
	<title>Re:Hate to say it</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1268390940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>although part of me has a hunch that we'll find out since shareholders will demand Google not leave one of the largest markets in the world.</p></div><p>They have no intentions of leaving the largest market in the world, nor the top 10 largest markets.<br>They are just leaving China.</p><p>By your logic, all those starving people in Africa with no clean water or electricity are a much much larger market than China...<br>The fact they have no money is clearly beside the point, as you don't seem to feel that is a necessity to being called 'a market', so that problem is already solved.</p><p>A nation of under a million potential customers is so very far away from 'largest market' that it is embarrassing.<br>There are states within the USA that are larger markets than that!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>although part of me has a hunch that we 'll find out since shareholders will demand Google not leave one of the largest markets in the world.They have no intentions of leaving the largest market in the world , nor the top 10 largest markets.They are just leaving China.By your logic , all those starving people in Africa with no clean water or electricity are a much much larger market than China...The fact they have no money is clearly beside the point , as you do n't seem to feel that is a necessity to being called 'a market ' , so that problem is already solved.A nation of under a million potential customers is so very far away from 'largest market ' that it is embarrassing.There are states within the USA that are larger markets than that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>although part of me has a hunch that we'll find out since shareholders will demand Google not leave one of the largest markets in the world.They have no intentions of leaving the largest market in the world, nor the top 10 largest markets.They are just leaving China.By your logic, all those starving people in Africa with no clean water or electricity are a much much larger market than China...The fact they have no money is clearly beside the point, as you don't seem to feel that is a necessity to being called 'a market', so that problem is already solved.A nation of under a million potential customers is so very far away from 'largest market' that it is embarrassing.There are states within the USA that are larger markets than that!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31462334</id>
	<title>So what's the problem?</title>
	<author>Trogre</author>
	<datestamp>1268512620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just do the not-evil thing, and leave.  Where's the problem here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just do the not-evil thing , and leave .
Where 's the problem here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just do the not-evil thing, and leave.
Where's the problem here?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31460312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456862
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31460540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31459262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31458824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31458702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31460390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31460638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31459288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31470606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31458642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31459848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31459838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31458598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31460574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31463814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31461916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31459790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31463064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_12_185227_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_185227.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456854
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456080
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456974
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_185227.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454848
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_185227.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31460638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31458702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_185227.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455560
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_185227.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31458824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31459838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31459790
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31463814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_185227.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31463064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_185227.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31460452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_185227.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456774
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_185227.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31461916
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_185227.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31460312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31459848
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_185227.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31459262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_185227.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_185227.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_185227.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31460540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31460574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31459288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455748
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_185227.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_185227.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_185227.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_185227.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31457502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_185227.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_185227.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31458642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_185227.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31458598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_185227.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31454804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31460390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_185227.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31455152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31470606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_12_185227.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_12_185227.31456204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
