<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_26_1256216</id>
	<title>We're Staying In China, Says Microsoft</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1269610320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ericb tips an article at the Guardian which begins:
<i>"Hopes that Google's forthright stand on censorship in China would inspire other companies to follow suit appeared unfounded today, with the move instead threatening to widen the rift between some of the world's most powerful internet companies. Microsoft, which has considerable interests in the country, including its Bing search engine, responded directly to criticism by Google's co-founder Sergey Brin, who this week accused the company of speaking against human rights and free speech. Brin, who pressed for the closing down of Google's self-censored Chinese search engine, said yesterday: 'I'm very disappointed for them in particular. I would hope that larger companies would not put profit ahead of all else. Generally, companies should pay attention to how and where their products are used.' Microsoft rejected Brin's critique, saying <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/mar/25/china-microsoft-free-speech-google">it would continue to obey local laws on censorship in China</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ericb tips an article at the Guardian which begins : " Hopes that Google 's forthright stand on censorship in China would inspire other companies to follow suit appeared unfounded today , with the move instead threatening to widen the rift between some of the world 's most powerful internet companies .
Microsoft , which has considerable interests in the country , including its Bing search engine , responded directly to criticism by Google 's co-founder Sergey Brin , who this week accused the company of speaking against human rights and free speech .
Brin , who pressed for the closing down of Google 's self-censored Chinese search engine , said yesterday : 'I 'm very disappointed for them in particular .
I would hope that larger companies would not put profit ahead of all else .
Generally , companies should pay attention to how and where their products are used .
' Microsoft rejected Brin 's critique , saying it would continue to obey local laws on censorship in China .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ericb tips an article at the Guardian which begins:
"Hopes that Google's forthright stand on censorship in China would inspire other companies to follow suit appeared unfounded today, with the move instead threatening to widen the rift between some of the world's most powerful internet companies.
Microsoft, which has considerable interests in the country, including its Bing search engine, responded directly to criticism by Google's co-founder Sergey Brin, who this week accused the company of speaking against human rights and free speech.
Brin, who pressed for the closing down of Google's self-censored Chinese search engine, said yesterday: 'I'm very disappointed for them in particular.
I would hope that larger companies would not put profit ahead of all else.
Generally, companies should pay attention to how and where their products are used.
' Microsoft rejected Brin's critique, saying it would continue to obey local laws on censorship in China.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626736</id>
	<title>Vote with your dollars</title>
	<author>PNutts</author>
	<datestamp>1269620100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The majority of posts here (and the article) accuse Microsoft of putting "profit over all else". However, when you do so you should also participate or risk becoming a Limousine Liberal <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limousine\_liberal" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limousine\_liberal</a> [wikipedia.org]. The easiest thing to do is stop buying items "Made in China". The harder part is to research each product you buy to determine how much Chinese labor<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/goods / profits are in that item. Some tech items are straightforward (Lenovo laptops and Cisco providing equipment to the Great Firewall), but according to CNN it isn't easy for consumers <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/07/26/china.products/index.html" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/07/26/china.products/index.html</a> [cnn.com] (50\% of apple juice for example).</p><p>When you take a stand against Microsoft for their business practices in regard to Chinese rights then you should apply that standard across the board and avoid the businesses and products that conflict with your beliefs.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/soapbox</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The majority of posts here ( and the article ) accuse Microsoft of putting " profit over all else " .
However , when you do so you should also participate or risk becoming a Limousine Liberal http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limousine \ _liberal [ wikipedia.org ] .
The easiest thing to do is stop buying items " Made in China " .
The harder part is to research each product you buy to determine how much Chinese labor /goods / profits are in that item .
Some tech items are straightforward ( Lenovo laptops and Cisco providing equipment to the Great Firewall ) , but according to CNN it is n't easy for consumers http : //www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/07/26/china.products/index.html [ cnn.com ] ( 50 \ % of apple juice for example ) .When you take a stand against Microsoft for their business practices in regard to Chinese rights then you should apply that standard across the board and avoid the businesses and products that conflict with your beliefs .
/soapbox</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The majority of posts here (and the article) accuse Microsoft of putting "profit over all else".
However, when you do so you should also participate or risk becoming a Limousine Liberal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limousine\_liberal [wikipedia.org].
The easiest thing to do is stop buying items "Made in China".
The harder part is to research each product you buy to determine how much Chinese labor /goods / profits are in that item.
Some tech items are straightforward (Lenovo laptops and Cisco providing equipment to the Great Firewall), but according to CNN it isn't easy for consumers http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/wayoflife/07/26/china.products/index.html [cnn.com] (50\% of apple juice for example).When you take a stand against Microsoft for their business practices in regard to Chinese rights then you should apply that standard across the board and avoid the businesses and products that conflict with your beliefs.
/soapbox</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625668</id>
	<title>Re:How good of them.</title>
	<author>Himring</author>
	<datestamp>1269616260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I sense a disturbance in the godwin....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I sense a disturbance in the godwin... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sense a disturbance in the godwin....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625630</id>
	<title>Re:Conflicted!</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1269616140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bingo.  They only discovered that they had principles after they got publicly bitch-slapped all over the trailer park.  Some credit is due for them walking out rather than crawling back for another beating, hoping they could change China if they just loved them enough, but they should never have started dating them in the first place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bingo .
They only discovered that they had principles after they got publicly bitch-slapped all over the trailer park .
Some credit is due for them walking out rather than crawling back for another beating , hoping they could change China if they just loved them enough , but they should never have started dating them in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bingo.
They only discovered that they had principles after they got publicly bitch-slapped all over the trailer park.
Some credit is due for them walking out rather than crawling back for another beating, hoping they could change China if they just loved them enough, but they should never have started dating them in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626370</id>
	<title>To play devil's advocate</title>
	<author>McBeer</author>
	<datestamp>1269618720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft employs a lot more Chinese developers then Google (or most anybody for that matter).  MS pays those developers about twice as much as other tech companies and 10 times as much as the average labor in the area.  Perhaps they are doing more good by spurring economic development in china.  That development leads to more people being able to have internet access.  More people will see the censorship and really no filter can prevent everything from getting through.<br>
&nbsp; <br>I suppose they could still employ people in China and just not offer their software there anymore, but that seems like a poor way to conduct business given a lot of the Chinese employees work on China specific stuff</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft employs a lot more Chinese developers then Google ( or most anybody for that matter ) .
MS pays those developers about twice as much as other tech companies and 10 times as much as the average labor in the area .
Perhaps they are doing more good by spurring economic development in china .
That development leads to more people being able to have internet access .
More people will see the censorship and really no filter can prevent everything from getting through .
  I suppose they could still employ people in China and just not offer their software there anymore , but that seems like a poor way to conduct business given a lot of the Chinese employees work on China specific stuff</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft employs a lot more Chinese developers then Google (or most anybody for that matter).
MS pays those developers about twice as much as other tech companies and 10 times as much as the average labor in the area.
Perhaps they are doing more good by spurring economic development in china.
That development leads to more people being able to have internet access.
More people will see the censorship and really no filter can prevent everything from getting through.
  I suppose they could still employ people in China and just not offer their software there anymore, but that seems like a poor way to conduct business given a lot of the Chinese employees work on China specific stuff</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626726</id>
	<title>Brin is a useless douchebag</title>
	<author>superyanthrax</author>
	<datestamp>1269620040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How the hell does someone who is 6 years old know anything about what's going on around them anyway, especially issues of politics and governance? All he knows is what his parents told him, and given that they defected they were probably traitors anyway.
<br> <br>
Microsoft gets it. You will follow our laws if you want to do business in our country, otherwise you can GTFO. If Brin wants to lose money on purpose for a farcical and irrelevant cause, he can do so by all means. Google's shareholders won't be so happy with him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How the hell does someone who is 6 years old know anything about what 's going on around them anyway , especially issues of politics and governance ?
All he knows is what his parents told him , and given that they defected they were probably traitors anyway .
Microsoft gets it .
You will follow our laws if you want to do business in our country , otherwise you can GTFO .
If Brin wants to lose money on purpose for a farcical and irrelevant cause , he can do so by all means .
Google 's shareholders wo n't be so happy with him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the hell does someone who is 6 years old know anything about what's going on around them anyway, especially issues of politics and governance?
All he knows is what his parents told him, and given that they defected they were probably traitors anyway.
Microsoft gets it.
You will follow our laws if you want to do business in our country, otherwise you can GTFO.
If Brin wants to lose money on purpose for a farcical and irrelevant cause, he can do so by all means.
Google's shareholders won't be so happy with him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625176</id>
	<title>The Best Kind of News</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1269614040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>

Normally the news likes to hand you a big fat moral or ethical dilemma when you find out that your favorite product is made by Big Evil.  But this is the best kind of news for me!  The kind that further reaffirms my views on my most hated companies!  <br> <br>

Terrible news for the Chinese.  Great news for my Down with Microsoft agenda!  When you're chewing on life's gristle don't grumble, give a whistle!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Normally the news likes to hand you a big fat moral or ethical dilemma when you find out that your favorite product is made by Big Evil .
But this is the best kind of news for me !
The kind that further reaffirms my views on my most hated companies !
Terrible news for the Chinese .
Great news for my Down with Microsoft agenda !
When you 're chewing on life 's gristle do n't grumble , give a whistle !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

Normally the news likes to hand you a big fat moral or ethical dilemma when you find out that your favorite product is made by Big Evil.
But this is the best kind of news for me!
The kind that further reaffirms my views on my most hated companies!
Terrible news for the Chinese.
Great news for my Down with Microsoft agenda!
When you're chewing on life's gristle don't grumble, give a whistle!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31641048</id>
	<title>Re:Conflicted!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269715680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>30 or more companies got hacked, not just google.  Microsoft was probably one of them.  Google was the only one with balls enough to do something about it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>30 or more companies got hacked , not just google .
Microsoft was probably one of them .
Google was the only one with balls enough to do something about it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>30 or more companies got hacked, not just google.
Microsoft was probably one of them.
Google was the only one with balls enough to do something about it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625496</id>
	<title>Re:Conflicted!</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1269615540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I admire Google's new policy on China, but dislike their privacy policies in the US."<br>Sorry but admiring Google for no longer  censoring is like admiring someone for no longer beating their child.<br>Yes I am glad it stopped but it should have never started.<br>Also Google only did this after they got hacked the the government. I have for a long time stated that Google was doing evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I admire Google 's new policy on China , but dislike their privacy policies in the US .
" Sorry but admiring Google for no longer censoring is like admiring someone for no longer beating their child.Yes I am glad it stopped but it should have never started.Also Google only did this after they got hacked the the government .
I have for a long time stated that Google was doing evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I admire Google's new policy on China, but dislike their privacy policies in the US.
"Sorry but admiring Google for no longer  censoring is like admiring someone for no longer beating their child.Yes I am glad it stopped but it should have never started.Also Google only did this after they got hacked the the government.
I have for a long time stated that Google was doing evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625574</id>
	<title>Did Anyone Expect Anything Else?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269615960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did anyone honestly expect anything else of Microsoft?  Sure, I hope other companies will follow suit but I don't expect any of them to be direct competitors with Google.  The allure of a Google-free environment is just too tempting to resist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anyone honestly expect anything else of Microsoft ?
Sure , I hope other companies will follow suit but I do n't expect any of them to be direct competitors with Google .
The allure of a Google-free environment is just too tempting to resist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anyone honestly expect anything else of Microsoft?
Sure, I hope other companies will follow suit but I don't expect any of them to be direct competitors with Google.
The allure of a Google-free environment is just too tempting to resist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31628816</id>
	<title>Do Evil</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1269627420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other news Microsoft announces it will continue its policy of doing evil where ever it can. Bean counters note that security flaws in Microsoft products have cost the galaxy $42 Quadrillion Jazillion in the past year alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news Microsoft announces it will continue its policy of doing evil where ever it can .
Bean counters note that security flaws in Microsoft products have cost the galaxy $ 42 Quadrillion Jazillion in the past year alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news Microsoft announces it will continue its policy of doing evil where ever it can.
Bean counters note that security flaws in Microsoft products have cost the galaxy $42 Quadrillion Jazillion in the past year alone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626590</id>
	<title>I share another posters sentiment on this</title>
	<author>DeadTOm</author>
	<datestamp>1269619620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was pleased that google chose to leave china much in the same way that I'm pleased that someone stops beating their child. Anyway, kudos to Google nonetheless. However, I would expect nothing less from Microsoft on this kind of thing. Their record shows, since the companies formation that they will always, without exception, choose the profitable thing over the right thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was pleased that google chose to leave china much in the same way that I 'm pleased that someone stops beating their child .
Anyway , kudos to Google nonetheless .
However , I would expect nothing less from Microsoft on this kind of thing .
Their record shows , since the companies formation that they will always , without exception , choose the profitable thing over the right thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was pleased that google chose to leave china much in the same way that I'm pleased that someone stops beating their child.
Anyway, kudos to Google nonetheless.
However, I would expect nothing less from Microsoft on this kind of thing.
Their record shows, since the companies formation that they will always, without exception, choose the profitable thing over the right thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31629566</id>
	<title>Reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269629820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The communist Chinese government murders its citizens for speaking out in favor of freedom and democracy.
<br>
<br>
Most US corporations are evidently OK with that. Can't stand in profit's way after all, that just wouldn't be right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The communist Chinese government murders its citizens for speaking out in favor of freedom and democracy .
Most US corporations are evidently OK with that .
Ca n't stand in profit 's way after all , that just would n't be right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The communist Chinese government murders its citizens for speaking out in favor of freedom and democracy.
Most US corporations are evidently OK with that.
Can't stand in profit's way after all, that just wouldn't be right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625462</id>
	<title>I think most people agree, including US government</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1269615300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Siding with China in times when the US is just waiting for anything to lambast China for this is not a smart move of Microsoft. The US has slowly started to realize China is the lawnmower and US is the grass unless something is done, especially know when the brain drain is starting to go towards China, leaving the US with nothing at all, neither patents nor manufacturing or talent.</p><p>The problem for Microsoft is that a whitdrawal would give open source unprecedented foothold. No matter how they turn they end up with problems at their hands. I dont think that was the goal of Google but if it plays out this way it sure tells being "the good guy" can pay out in the long run.</p><p>Just look at this article:</p><p><a href="http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/24/technology/china\_google\_hearing/index.htm" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/24/technology/china\_google\_hearing/index.htm</a> [cnn.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Siding with China in times when the US is just waiting for anything to lambast China for this is not a smart move of Microsoft .
The US has slowly started to realize China is the lawnmower and US is the grass unless something is done , especially know when the brain drain is starting to go towards China , leaving the US with nothing at all , neither patents nor manufacturing or talent.The problem for Microsoft is that a whitdrawal would give open source unprecedented foothold .
No matter how they turn they end up with problems at their hands .
I dont think that was the goal of Google but if it plays out this way it sure tells being " the good guy " can pay out in the long run.Just look at this article : http : //money.cnn.com/2010/03/24/technology/china \ _google \ _hearing/index.htm [ cnn.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Siding with China in times when the US is just waiting for anything to lambast China for this is not a smart move of Microsoft.
The US has slowly started to realize China is the lawnmower and US is the grass unless something is done, especially know when the brain drain is starting to go towards China, leaving the US with nothing at all, neither patents nor manufacturing or talent.The problem for Microsoft is that a whitdrawal would give open source unprecedented foothold.
No matter how they turn they end up with problems at their hands.
I dont think that was the goal of Google but if it plays out this way it sure tells being "the good guy" can pay out in the long run.Just look at this article:http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/24/technology/china\_google\_hearing/index.htm [cnn.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626108</id>
	<title>Re:Torn</title>
	<author>elashish14</author>
	<datestamp>1269617820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm kind of torn by this whole China/Google/Microsoft thing.  While I'm not a fan of the Chinese government, who are we to say what they should and shouldn't allow?</p></div><p>Why shouldn't we? It's called morals. There are things that nobody should allow one group of people to do to others. If one person beats another, are you saying no one should have the right to tell them that it's wrong? The Chinese government completely crosses the line in my book with respect to how they treat their citizens.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Would we want a Chinese company to come into our country and tell our government what to do?</p></div><p>Sure. It's always within their power to kick that company out. Which is just why China is doing to Google. So why shouldn't Google speak up?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>While I've seen a great deal of discussion about human rights surrounding these stories, I've seen precious little about sovereignty.</p></div><p>Just because you're in power doesn't mean you can do whatever you want to the people you control. Or people in other countries for that matter. That would almost invariably lead to absolutism -- as the Chinese currently have. Simple formula: human rights &gt; sovereignty, no matter who you are. Thing is, no one has the balls/power to stand up to them, so they can do whatever they want. All superpowers rise that way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm kind of torn by this whole China/Google/Microsoft thing .
While I 'm not a fan of the Chinese government , who are we to say what they should and should n't allow ? Why should n't we ?
It 's called morals .
There are things that nobody should allow one group of people to do to others .
If one person beats another , are you saying no one should have the right to tell them that it 's wrong ?
The Chinese government completely crosses the line in my book with respect to how they treat their citizens.Would we want a Chinese company to come into our country and tell our government what to do ? Sure .
It 's always within their power to kick that company out .
Which is just why China is doing to Google .
So why should n't Google speak up ? While I 've seen a great deal of discussion about human rights surrounding these stories , I 've seen precious little about sovereignty.Just because you 're in power does n't mean you can do whatever you want to the people you control .
Or people in other countries for that matter .
That would almost invariably lead to absolutism -- as the Chinese currently have .
Simple formula : human rights &gt; sovereignty , no matter who you are .
Thing is , no one has the balls/power to stand up to them , so they can do whatever they want .
All superpowers rise that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm kind of torn by this whole China/Google/Microsoft thing.
While I'm not a fan of the Chinese government, who are we to say what they should and shouldn't allow?Why shouldn't we?
It's called morals.
There are things that nobody should allow one group of people to do to others.
If one person beats another, are you saying no one should have the right to tell them that it's wrong?
The Chinese government completely crosses the line in my book with respect to how they treat their citizens.Would we want a Chinese company to come into our country and tell our government what to do?Sure.
It's always within their power to kick that company out.
Which is just why China is doing to Google.
So why shouldn't Google speak up?While I've seen a great deal of discussion about human rights surrounding these stories, I've seen precious little about sovereignty.Just because you're in power doesn't mean you can do whatever you want to the people you control.
Or people in other countries for that matter.
That would almost invariably lead to absolutism -- as the Chinese currently have.
Simple formula: human rights &gt; sovereignty, no matter who you are.
Thing is, no one has the balls/power to stand up to them, so they can do whatever they want.
All superpowers rise that way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31629046</id>
	<title>Re:Torn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269628080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I take it you believe everyone thinks free speech is a fundamental human right?</p><p>Just because you believe something different doesn't make what China believes right or wrong in any absolute sense. Right and wrong is always determined by the eyes you're viewing it from, never an absolute.</p><p>FYI: I'm a US citizen of Chinese descent. My belief is that we should leave China alone and figure out our own many problems being trying to interfere with the rest of the planet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I take it you believe everyone thinks free speech is a fundamental human right ? Just because you believe something different does n't make what China believes right or wrong in any absolute sense .
Right and wrong is always determined by the eyes you 're viewing it from , never an absolute.FYI : I 'm a US citizen of Chinese descent .
My belief is that we should leave China alone and figure out our own many problems being trying to interfere with the rest of the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I take it you believe everyone thinks free speech is a fundamental human right?Just because you believe something different doesn't make what China believes right or wrong in any absolute sense.
Right and wrong is always determined by the eyes you're viewing it from, never an absolute.FYI: I'm a US citizen of Chinese descent.
My belief is that we should leave China alone and figure out our own many problems being trying to interfere with the rest of the planet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625530</id>
	<title>Typical Google Shill Response</title>
	<author>GoogleWouldn'tDoEvil</author>
	<datestamp>1269615720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OMG M$ is evil!!11
GooGle is awesome, they're like V for Vendetta!@!1


Boo Bill Gates!</htmltext>
<tokenext>OMG M $ is evil !
! 11 GooGle is awesome , they 're like V for Vendetta !
@ ! 1 Boo Bill Gates !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OMG M$ is evil!
!11
GooGle is awesome, they're like V for Vendetta!
@!1


Boo Bill Gates!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625466</id>
	<title>Re:Torn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269615420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>im not a scholar on chinese governing.. but on the other side of this big debate where we have to put a good face on china,  and say that they are protecting their citizens and whatnot by doing all this.. i just find that to be unbelievable.. i just cannot imagine that the men at the top in the chinese gov'nt are doing everything they're doing out of the kindness of their hearts for their citizens.


anyway the pressure should be on companies such as microsoft now, that take an unofficial  pro-censorship stance to be apart of the market over there, instead of directly at the govnt.

in the end i see this big thing going one of two ways, either successfully overpowering the govnt's stance.. or effectively creating a china wide LAN.</htmltext>
<tokenext>im not a scholar on chinese governing.. but on the other side of this big debate where we have to put a good face on china , and say that they are protecting their citizens and whatnot by doing all this.. i just find that to be unbelievable.. i just can not imagine that the men at the top in the chinese gov'nt are doing everything they 're doing out of the kindness of their hearts for their citizens .
anyway the pressure should be on companies such as microsoft now , that take an unofficial pro-censorship stance to be apart of the market over there , instead of directly at the govnt .
in the end i see this big thing going one of two ways , either successfully overpowering the govnt 's stance.. or effectively creating a china wide LAN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>im not a scholar on chinese governing.. but on the other side of this big debate where we have to put a good face on china,  and say that they are protecting their citizens and whatnot by doing all this.. i just find that to be unbelievable.. i just cannot imagine that the men at the top in the chinese gov'nt are doing everything they're doing out of the kindness of their hearts for their citizens.
anyway the pressure should be on companies such as microsoft now, that take an unofficial  pro-censorship stance to be apart of the market over there, instead of directly at the govnt.
in the end i see this big thing going one of two ways, either successfully overpowering the govnt's stance.. or effectively creating a china wide LAN.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625620</id>
	<title>It won't come cheap for Microsoft</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1269616080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since Microsoft has decided to tow the line, it's going to be tough for them.  Exactly how much money is to be made in China?  I think Google pulling out wasn't completely about morality. I think they just sold it as such. I think it had to do more with the extreme overhead in dealing with the Chinese governemnt.  Like in managing massive filters that are required.  Not just for existing content, but new content. Tie that in with the fact that probably every 2 minutes, the Chinese government adding 50 new things to be filtered.</p><p>I liken SPAM management to web filtering, but web filtering is on a much much larger scale.  There isn't just around one to two thousand people writing web content.  There are around 116+ million domains and around 150,000 new domains each day. (http://whois.sc/internet-statistics/) The dataset is astronomical.  I'm sure installing WebSense is inadequate.</p><p>Good luck Microsoft. Not sure it's going to be as profitable as you think.  Not to mention, I'm not sure China is all tat Microsoft friendly.  I seem to recall the Chinese government forcing people to uninstall Windows in favor of Red Flag Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since Microsoft has decided to tow the line , it 's going to be tough for them .
Exactly how much money is to be made in China ?
I think Google pulling out was n't completely about morality .
I think they just sold it as such .
I think it had to do more with the extreme overhead in dealing with the Chinese governemnt .
Like in managing massive filters that are required .
Not just for existing content , but new content .
Tie that in with the fact that probably every 2 minutes , the Chinese government adding 50 new things to be filtered.I liken SPAM management to web filtering , but web filtering is on a much much larger scale .
There is n't just around one to two thousand people writing web content .
There are around 116 + million domains and around 150,000 new domains each day .
( http : //whois.sc/internet-statistics/ ) The dataset is astronomical .
I 'm sure installing WebSense is inadequate.Good luck Microsoft .
Not sure it 's going to be as profitable as you think .
Not to mention , I 'm not sure China is all tat Microsoft friendly .
I seem to recall the Chinese government forcing people to uninstall Windows in favor of Red Flag Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since Microsoft has decided to tow the line, it's going to be tough for them.
Exactly how much money is to be made in China?
I think Google pulling out wasn't completely about morality.
I think they just sold it as such.
I think it had to do more with the extreme overhead in dealing with the Chinese governemnt.
Like in managing massive filters that are required.
Not just for existing content, but new content.
Tie that in with the fact that probably every 2 minutes, the Chinese government adding 50 new things to be filtered.I liken SPAM management to web filtering, but web filtering is on a much much larger scale.
There isn't just around one to two thousand people writing web content.
There are around 116+ million domains and around 150,000 new domains each day.
(http://whois.sc/internet-statistics/) The dataset is astronomical.
I'm sure installing WebSense is inadequate.Good luck Microsoft.
Not sure it's going to be as profitable as you think.
Not to mention, I'm not sure China is all tat Microsoft friendly.
I seem to recall the Chinese government forcing people to uninstall Windows in favor of Red Flag Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625666</id>
	<title>Gee, thanks Microsoft</title>
	<author>JamesP</author>
	<datestamp>1269616260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>, nobody asked though...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>, nobody asked though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>, nobody asked though...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626032</id>
	<title>Re:Conflicted!</title>
	<author>The Grassy Knoll</author>
	<datestamp>1269617640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's only one thing to do...</p><p>"FIIIIIIIIIIGHT!"</p><p>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's only one thing to do... " FIIIIIIIIIIGHT !
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's only one thing to do..."FIIIIIIIIIIGHT!
".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626892</id>
	<title>Don't Bother</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269620580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"I'm kind of torn by this whole China/Google/Microsoft thing. While I'm not a fan of the Chinese government, who are we to say what they should and shouldn't allow? Would we want a Chinese company to come into our country and tell our government what to do? While I've seen a great deal of discussion about human rights surrounding these stories, I've seen precious little about sovereignty."</i> <br> <br>

I'm big on the idea of moral relativism, and I believe that just because we value something it does NOT mean that another country should value it as well. In fact, a while back I went as far as to suggest that perhaps a country that doesn't have freedom of speech might not need to be "corrected" on the topic.<br> <br>

I was modded so far down that some sort of anti-troll filter kicked in and nobody at my work could post to slashdot for 30 days.<br> <br>

That's the day when I realized that a lot of people on slashdot use mod points to punish people they disagree with. It's so much more handy than discussing things.<br> <br>

Then again, maybe it was me. I see you're doing alright.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm kind of torn by this whole China/Google/Microsoft thing .
While I 'm not a fan of the Chinese government , who are we to say what they should and should n't allow ?
Would we want a Chinese company to come into our country and tell our government what to do ?
While I 've seen a great deal of discussion about human rights surrounding these stories , I 've seen precious little about sovereignty .
" I 'm big on the idea of moral relativism , and I believe that just because we value something it does NOT mean that another country should value it as well .
In fact , a while back I went as far as to suggest that perhaps a country that does n't have freedom of speech might not need to be " corrected " on the topic .
I was modded so far down that some sort of anti-troll filter kicked in and nobody at my work could post to slashdot for 30 days .
That 's the day when I realized that a lot of people on slashdot use mod points to punish people they disagree with .
It 's so much more handy than discussing things .
Then again , maybe it was me .
I see you 're doing alright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm kind of torn by this whole China/Google/Microsoft thing.
While I'm not a fan of the Chinese government, who are we to say what they should and shouldn't allow?
Would we want a Chinese company to come into our country and tell our government what to do?
While I've seen a great deal of discussion about human rights surrounding these stories, I've seen precious little about sovereignty.
"  

I'm big on the idea of moral relativism, and I believe that just because we value something it does NOT mean that another country should value it as well.
In fact, a while back I went as far as to suggest that perhaps a country that doesn't have freedom of speech might not need to be "corrected" on the topic.
I was modded so far down that some sort of anti-troll filter kicked in and nobody at my work could post to slashdot for 30 days.
That's the day when I realized that a lot of people on slashdot use mod points to punish people they disagree with.
It's so much more handy than discussing things.
Then again, maybe it was me.
I see you're doing alright.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31628998</id>
	<title>Re:How good of them.</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1269627900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The oddest historical hookup I remember how well Ford worked with pre WWII USSR they did all sorts of deals with Stalin and company. Which if you think about it should really make your head hurt.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Uh, why?  We were allies.  The US Government itself advanced the Soviets $11e9 through the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease" title="wikipedia.org">lend-lease</a> [wikipedia.org] program.
</p><p>
Are you sure you don't mean Henry Ford's relations with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry\_Ford#Politics" title="wikipedia.org">Germany</a> [wikipedia.org]?</p><blockquote><div><p>Ford and Adolf Hitler admired each other's achievements.[33] Adolf Hitler kept a life-size portrait of Ford next to his desk.[33] "I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration," Hitler told a Detroit News reporter two years before becoming the Chancellor of Germany in 1933.[33] In July 1938, four months after the German annexation of Austria, Ford was awarded the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, the highest medal awarded by Nazi Germany to foreigners.[33]  Ford disliked the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and did not approve of U.S. involvement in the war.</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The oddest historical hookup I remember how well Ford worked with pre WWII USSR they did all sorts of deals with Stalin and company .
Which if you think about it should really make your head hurt .
Uh , why ?
We were allies .
The US Government itself advanced the Soviets $ 11e9 through the lend-lease [ wikipedia.org ] program .
Are you sure you do n't mean Henry Ford 's relations with Germany [ wikipedia.org ] ? Ford and Adolf Hitler admired each other 's achievements .
[ 33 ] Adolf Hitler kept a life-size portrait of Ford next to his desk .
[ 33 ] " I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration , " Hitler told a Detroit News reporter two years before becoming the Chancellor of Germany in 1933 .
[ 33 ] In July 1938 , four months after the German annexation of Austria , Ford was awarded the Grand Cross of the German Eagle , the highest medal awarded by Nazi Germany to foreigners .
[ 33 ] Ford disliked the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and did not approve of U.S. involvement in the war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The oddest historical hookup I remember how well Ford worked with pre WWII USSR they did all sorts of deals with Stalin and company.
Which if you think about it should really make your head hurt.
Uh, why?
We were allies.
The US Government itself advanced the Soviets $11e9 through the lend-lease [wikipedia.org] program.
Are you sure you don't mean Henry Ford's relations with Germany [wikipedia.org]?Ford and Adolf Hitler admired each other's achievements.
[33] Adolf Hitler kept a life-size portrait of Ford next to his desk.
[33] "I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration," Hitler told a Detroit News reporter two years before becoming the Chancellor of Germany in 1933.
[33] In July 1938, four months after the German annexation of Austria, Ford was awarded the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, the highest medal awarded by Nazi Germany to foreigners.
[33]  Ford disliked the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and did not approve of U.S. involvement in the war.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625636</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31628048</id>
	<title>Re:Torn</title>
	<author>saihung</author>
	<datestamp>1269625020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Regimes that murder lots of people always use "national sovereignty" as a shield against criticism.</p><p>Who are we?  We are the free world.  And if we can't recognize that all men have inalienable rights, and that those rights take precedence over the claims of dead-eyed murders to an absolute right of control, then why the hell do we exist?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Regimes that murder lots of people always use " national sovereignty " as a shield against criticism.Who are we ?
We are the free world .
And if we ca n't recognize that all men have inalienable rights , and that those rights take precedence over the claims of dead-eyed murders to an absolute right of control , then why the hell do we exist ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regimes that murder lots of people always use "national sovereignty" as a shield against criticism.Who are we?
We are the free world.
And if we can't recognize that all men have inalienable rights, and that those rights take precedence over the claims of dead-eyed murders to an absolute right of control, then why the hell do we exist?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626946</id>
	<title>And why wouldn't they?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269620820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With it being such a great fit. ^^</p><p>Eli Lily<br>Haliburton<br>Microsoft<br>Monsanto<br>Nestle</p><p>Those are the companies to stay far far away from.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...if you still can...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With it being such a great fit .
^ ^ Eli LilyHaliburtonMicrosoftMonsantoNestleThose are the companies to stay far far away from .
...if you still can.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With it being such a great fit.
^^Eli LilyHaliburtonMicrosoftMonsantoNestleThose are the companies to stay far far away from.
...if you still can...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625306</id>
	<title>A Good Thing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269614640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe now that the people of China only have M$ as a search giant to choose from, people will flee and the regime will collapse so democracy can win again!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe now that the people of China only have M $ as a search giant to choose from , people will flee and the regime will collapse so democracy can win again !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe now that the people of China only have M$ as a search giant to choose from, people will flee and the regime will collapse so democracy can win again!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627326</id>
	<title>Re:Torn</title>
	<author>DevStar</author>
	<datestamp>1269622560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think lack of universal health care is a violation of human rights.  How should we be punished in the US?  (Note, even with this latest bill, we still don't have UHC).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think lack of universal health care is a violation of human rights .
How should we be punished in the US ?
( Note , even with this latest bill , we still do n't have UHC ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think lack of universal health care is a violation of human rights.
How should we be punished in the US?
(Note, even with this latest bill, we still don't have UHC).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625872</id>
	<title>Re:Torn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269617100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a fan of the hypocrites who impose minimum wage laws in the local economy but allow imports without any restrictions.</p><p>I'm not a fan of the hypocrites who impose consumer protection laws in the local economy but allow imports without any restrictions.</p><p>I'm not a fan of the hypocrites who impose environmental  laws in the local economy but allow imports without any restrictions.</p><p>We allow the *AA to tell our government what to do, so what makes you think that they don't?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a fan of the hypocrites who impose minimum wage laws in the local economy but allow imports without any restrictions.I 'm not a fan of the hypocrites who impose consumer protection laws in the local economy but allow imports without any restrictions.I 'm not a fan of the hypocrites who impose environmental laws in the local economy but allow imports without any restrictions.We allow the * AA to tell our government what to do , so what makes you think that they do n't ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a fan of the hypocrites who impose minimum wage laws in the local economy but allow imports without any restrictions.I'm not a fan of the hypocrites who impose consumer protection laws in the local economy but allow imports without any restrictions.I'm not a fan of the hypocrites who impose environmental  laws in the local economy but allow imports without any restrictions.We allow the *AA to tell our government what to do, so what makes you think that they don't?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31628534</id>
	<title>Re:Conflicted!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269626400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sorry but admiring Google for no longer  censoring is like admiring someone for no longer beating their child.<br>Yes I am glad it stopped but it should have never started.</p></div><p>I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you on this. While living in China I discovered that many Chinese are unaware that their results are filtered and the rest say that it's better filtered as the government is doing what it thinks is best for the people as a whole. This is a common sentiment there, even it's the one that's expressed to everyone else and the people have entirely different ideas at home that they don't want anyone else to know.</p><p>In Google's case they actually informed the people that there were censored search results so that the Chinese people might actually have an idea of just how much information they're denied access to, which I believe is a good thing overall. I'm not going blindly defend Google and say that they follow their "do no evil" policy but in this case even if their main objective was making advertising money I can see a bit of good coming out of it while playing by China's rules. Naturally they lost in the end and have decided to stop playing but don't say that not trying was the better alternative.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry but admiring Google for no longer censoring is like admiring someone for no longer beating their child.Yes I am glad it stopped but it should have never started.I 'm afraid that I have to disagree with you on this .
While living in China I discovered that many Chinese are unaware that their results are filtered and the rest say that it 's better filtered as the government is doing what it thinks is best for the people as a whole .
This is a common sentiment there , even it 's the one that 's expressed to everyone else and the people have entirely different ideas at home that they do n't want anyone else to know.In Google 's case they actually informed the people that there were censored search results so that the Chinese people might actually have an idea of just how much information they 're denied access to , which I believe is a good thing overall .
I 'm not going blindly defend Google and say that they follow their " do no evil " policy but in this case even if their main objective was making advertising money I can see a bit of good coming out of it while playing by China 's rules .
Naturally they lost in the end and have decided to stop playing but do n't say that not trying was the better alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry but admiring Google for no longer  censoring is like admiring someone for no longer beating their child.Yes I am glad it stopped but it should have never started.I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you on this.
While living in China I discovered that many Chinese are unaware that their results are filtered and the rest say that it's better filtered as the government is doing what it thinks is best for the people as a whole.
This is a common sentiment there, even it's the one that's expressed to everyone else and the people have entirely different ideas at home that they don't want anyone else to know.In Google's case they actually informed the people that there were censored search results so that the Chinese people might actually have an idea of just how much information they're denied access to, which I believe is a good thing overall.
I'm not going blindly defend Google and say that they follow their "do no evil" policy but in this case even if their main objective was making advertising money I can see a bit of good coming out of it while playing by China's rules.
Naturally they lost in the end and have decided to stop playing but don't say that not trying was the better alternative.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626700</id>
	<title>Screw MS and Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269619980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am no fan of Microsoft but how are they any better then Google?  Both of them are guily of violating the privacy of people right here in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am no fan of Microsoft but how are they any better then Google ?
Both of them are guily of violating the privacy of people right here in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am no fan of Microsoft but how are they any better then Google?
Both of them are guily of violating the privacy of people right here in the US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626576</id>
	<title>Totally understandable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269619560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Corrupt nation; Corrupt company.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Corrupt nation ; Corrupt company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corrupt nation; Corrupt company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625240</id>
	<title>That's ok.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269614340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one likes microsoft anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one likes microsoft anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one likes microsoft anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625772</id>
	<title>The need the numbers for "market share"</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1269616680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By this time next week they'll be claiming "Market share for Bing jumped by 19\%.in the last month".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By this time next week they 'll be claiming " Market share for Bing jumped by 19 \ % .in the last month " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By this time next week they'll be claiming "Market share for Bing jumped by 19\%.in the last month".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31633070</id>
	<title>Re:Torn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269600420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>cue the slashdot anti-America squad to come in and respond this post in 3... 2... 1...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>cue the slashdot anti-America squad to come in and respond this post in 3... 2... 1.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cue the slashdot anti-America squad to come in and respond this post in 3... 2... 1...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625698</id>
	<title>Let's do the math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269616380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With 2 bullion people, even at the expected 99.9\% piracy, that's a lot of money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With 2 bullion people , even at the expected 99.9 \ % piracy , that 's a lot of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With 2 bullion people, even at the expected 99.9\% piracy, that's a lot of money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626494</id>
	<title>That book is full of shit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269619200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any time corporate ethics come up, someone inevitably posts ths "IBM Nazi" thing like it is some kind of established fact.  Unfortunately it is not nearly as clear as Edwin Black and his supporters make it out to be.  First of all, <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01\_12/b3724036.htm" title="businessweek.com" rel="nofollow">not every historian even agrees</a> [businessweek.com] with the breathless claims made in the book, but few are willing to put up with the claims of anti-semitism that are inevitably raised when someone questions Mr Black's research.</p><p>Secondly, even assuming the company and everyone who ever was associated with it is guilty of being a Nazi, Edwin Black himself did a huge amount of business with IBM, so his moral lecturing rings a little hollow.</p><p>Thirdly, how could anyone believe that the launch of the book and the class action lawsuit (timed to happen simultaneously, and immediately thrown out of court never to be heard from again) was a co-incidence?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any time corporate ethics come up , someone inevitably posts ths " IBM Nazi " thing like it is some kind of established fact .
Unfortunately it is not nearly as clear as Edwin Black and his supporters make it out to be .
First of all , not every historian even agrees [ businessweek.com ] with the breathless claims made in the book , but few are willing to put up with the claims of anti-semitism that are inevitably raised when someone questions Mr Black 's research.Secondly , even assuming the company and everyone who ever was associated with it is guilty of being a Nazi , Edwin Black himself did a huge amount of business with IBM , so his moral lecturing rings a little hollow.Thirdly , how could anyone believe that the launch of the book and the class action lawsuit ( timed to happen simultaneously , and immediately thrown out of court never to be heard from again ) was a co-incidence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any time corporate ethics come up, someone inevitably posts ths "IBM Nazi" thing like it is some kind of established fact.
Unfortunately it is not nearly as clear as Edwin Black and his supporters make it out to be.
First of all, not every historian even agrees [businessweek.com] with the breathless claims made in the book, but few are willing to put up with the claims of anti-semitism that are inevitably raised when someone questions Mr Black's research.Secondly, even assuming the company and everyone who ever was associated with it is guilty of being a Nazi, Edwin Black himself did a huge amount of business with IBM, so his moral lecturing rings a little hollow.Thirdly, how could anyone believe that the launch of the book and the class action lawsuit (timed to happen simultaneously, and immediately thrown out of court never to be heard from again) was a co-incidence?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31643324</id>
	<title>Re:The Best Kind of News</title>
	<author>pedro1948</author>
	<datestamp>1269690840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What can you expect when a lot of $$$$ are involved? I'm actually surprised that Google is pulling out of the Chinese market since they are so large and will let you in if you play by their rules. Microsoft disgusts me by continuing to stay in such a repressive market. As long as companies are willing to kowtow to a government that treats it's people not much better than cattle, there will not be any change in the supression of free speech in China. The internet is supposed to be a place where ideas can be exchanged without government control and censorship. The Chinese government makes a mockery of this ideal and makes us all a little less free. If large corporations like Microsoft followed Google's lead by refusing to do business with a totalitarian state, the state will be forced to change and let it's people be freer to express whatever they want. If, however, these companies, especially companies that make products that can be used for the internet, follow Google's lead and say,"we will not deal with a country that supresses free speech and censors speech and where a citizen can go on the net", we can start changing the way the Chinese government treats it's people and it could lead to free exchange of ideas in China, not just what the government allows. Microsoft,by putting profits over ideals, is putting us one step closer to Orwell's society described in the book 1984. If you haven't read the book, make it your number one priority on your books to read list. The people who worked for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had to have studied 1984 because of the principles they used running the United States government. Thankfully, the current administration is not following these political ideas, or, at least they aren't being so obvious about it. Repression is repression and needs to be stopped because if not, it will spread like a cancer. Using repression to stop aggression/repression usually ends up with more repression as in the Patriot Act who's name would be hilarious if not for the freedoms we have lost through it. Google has it right. Nip it in the bud or it will come back to bite you in the ass.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What can you expect when a lot of $ $ $ $ are involved ?
I 'm actually surprised that Google is pulling out of the Chinese market since they are so large and will let you in if you play by their rules .
Microsoft disgusts me by continuing to stay in such a repressive market .
As long as companies are willing to kowtow to a government that treats it 's people not much better than cattle , there will not be any change in the supression of free speech in China .
The internet is supposed to be a place where ideas can be exchanged without government control and censorship .
The Chinese government makes a mockery of this ideal and makes us all a little less free .
If large corporations like Microsoft followed Google 's lead by refusing to do business with a totalitarian state , the state will be forced to change and let it 's people be freer to express whatever they want .
If , however , these companies , especially companies that make products that can be used for the internet , follow Google 's lead and say , " we will not deal with a country that supresses free speech and censors speech and where a citizen can go on the net " , we can start changing the way the Chinese government treats it 's people and it could lead to free exchange of ideas in China , not just what the government allows .
Microsoft,by putting profits over ideals , is putting us one step closer to Orwell 's society described in the book 1984 .
If you have n't read the book , make it your number one priority on your books to read list .
The people who worked for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had to have studied 1984 because of the principles they used running the United States government .
Thankfully , the current administration is not following these political ideas , or , at least they are n't being so obvious about it .
Repression is repression and needs to be stopped because if not , it will spread like a cancer .
Using repression to stop aggression/repression usually ends up with more repression as in the Patriot Act who 's name would be hilarious if not for the freedoms we have lost through it .
Google has it right .
Nip it in the bud or it will come back to bite you in the ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What can you expect when a lot of $$$$ are involved?
I'm actually surprised that Google is pulling out of the Chinese market since they are so large and will let you in if you play by their rules.
Microsoft disgusts me by continuing to stay in such a repressive market.
As long as companies are willing to kowtow to a government that treats it's people not much better than cattle, there will not be any change in the supression of free speech in China.
The internet is supposed to be a place where ideas can be exchanged without government control and censorship.
The Chinese government makes a mockery of this ideal and makes us all a little less free.
If large corporations like Microsoft followed Google's lead by refusing to do business with a totalitarian state, the state will be forced to change and let it's people be freer to express whatever they want.
If, however, these companies, especially companies that make products that can be used for the internet, follow Google's lead and say,"we will not deal with a country that supresses free speech and censors speech and where a citizen can go on the net", we can start changing the way the Chinese government treats it's people and it could lead to free exchange of ideas in China, not just what the government allows.
Microsoft,by putting profits over ideals, is putting us one step closer to Orwell's society described in the book 1984.
If you haven't read the book, make it your number one priority on your books to read list.
The people who worked for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney had to have studied 1984 because of the principles they used running the United States government.
Thankfully, the current administration is not following these political ideas, or, at least they aren't being so obvious about it.
Repression is repression and needs to be stopped because if not, it will spread like a cancer.
Using repression to stop aggression/repression usually ends up with more repression as in the Patriot Act who's name would be hilarious if not for the freedoms we have lost through it.
Google has it right.
Nip it in the bud or it will come back to bite you in the ass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31631724</id>
	<title>Re:Conflicted!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269595020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bingo.  They only discovered that they had principles after they got publicly bitch-slapped all over the trailer park.</p></div><p>Let's be accurate - they didn't get "publicly bitch-slapped" - they chose to make the incident public, when none of the other 20 or so affected companies even said anything about it. Not only did Google make it public, they turned it around and with their words and actions demonstrated that this kind of arrangement was not going to be acceptable; to the the government of the most populous country and one of the biggest economic powers in the world, no less.</p><p>Did this incident break the camel's back? Maybe, but remember that, after all, if Google didn't make a big stink about it, you wouldn't even have a clue it had happened.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bingo .
They only discovered that they had principles after they got publicly bitch-slapped all over the trailer park.Let 's be accurate - they did n't get " publicly bitch-slapped " - they chose to make the incident public , when none of the other 20 or so affected companies even said anything about it .
Not only did Google make it public , they turned it around and with their words and actions demonstrated that this kind of arrangement was not going to be acceptable ; to the the government of the most populous country and one of the biggest economic powers in the world , no less.Did this incident break the camel 's back ?
Maybe , but remember that , after all , if Google did n't make a big stink about it , you would n't even have a clue it had happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bingo.
They only discovered that they had principles after they got publicly bitch-slapped all over the trailer park.Let's be accurate - they didn't get "publicly bitch-slapped" - they chose to make the incident public, when none of the other 20 or so affected companies even said anything about it.
Not only did Google make it public, they turned it around and with their words and actions demonstrated that this kind of arrangement was not going to be acceptable; to the the government of the most populous country and one of the biggest economic powers in the world, no less.Did this incident break the camel's back?
Maybe, but remember that, after all, if Google didn't make a big stink about it, you wouldn't even have a clue it had happened.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31628304</id>
	<title>Hah! That's awesome.</title>
	<author>Petersko</author>
	<datestamp>1269625740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"That's the day when I realized that a lot of people on slashdot use mod points to punish people they disagree with. It's so much more handy than discussing things."</i> <br> <br>

I just got modded down as "off-topic" when my post was relevant. Somebody was just too stupid to realize that there's no "-1 disagree" for a reason.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" That 's the day when I realized that a lot of people on slashdot use mod points to punish people they disagree with .
It 's so much more handy than discussing things .
" I just got modded down as " off-topic " when my post was relevant .
Somebody was just too stupid to realize that there 's no " -1 disagree " for a reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"That's the day when I realized that a lot of people on slashdot use mod points to punish people they disagree with.
It's so much more handy than discussing things.
"  

I just got modded down as "off-topic" when my post was relevant.
Somebody was just too stupid to realize that there's no "-1 disagree" for a reason.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31633768</id>
	<title>The Chinese use Baidu</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269604500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah, they have Baidu, which is the main search engine in China.  Bing isn't even on the map.  Even here, they have to pay people to use it with those shopping deals they put out.</p><p>If you want to see what actual Chinese people think, <a href="http://www.chinasmack.com/stories/google-leaves-china-chinese-netizen-reactions/" title="chinasmack.com" rel="nofollow">look here</a> [chinasmack.com].  I actually submitted that as a story, but it was rejected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah , they have Baidu , which is the main search engine in China .
Bing is n't even on the map .
Even here , they have to pay people to use it with those shopping deals they put out.If you want to see what actual Chinese people think , look here [ chinasmack.com ] .
I actually submitted that as a story , but it was rejected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah, they have Baidu, which is the main search engine in China.
Bing isn't even on the map.
Even here, they have to pay people to use it with those shopping deals they put out.If you want to see what actual Chinese people think, look here [chinasmack.com].
I actually submitted that as a story, but it was rejected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625348</id>
	<title>Re:How good of them.</title>
	<author>santax</author>
	<datestamp>1269614820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have read the book 'IBM and the holocaust', now it is a long time ago, but IBM made the Nazi's pretty efficient in knowing where the (in their eyes) 'bad elements' lived. Interesting read for anyone interested in wo2 and ethics in doing business.

About MS, I am not surprised. China is big market and there is a lot of money to be made. Is it ethical? Well is it ethical to do business with the US after the iraq WMD-lies? Or with Europe for all I care for their involvement in Afghanistan?

At the end of the day, you can't do business with any government if you care the least bit about ethics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have read the book 'IBM and the holocaust ' , now it is a long time ago , but IBM made the Nazi 's pretty efficient in knowing where the ( in their eyes ) 'bad elements ' lived .
Interesting read for anyone interested in wo2 and ethics in doing business .
About MS , I am not surprised .
China is big market and there is a lot of money to be made .
Is it ethical ?
Well is it ethical to do business with the US after the iraq WMD-lies ?
Or with Europe for all I care for their involvement in Afghanistan ?
At the end of the day , you ca n't do business with any government if you care the least bit about ethics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have read the book 'IBM and the holocaust', now it is a long time ago, but IBM made the Nazi's pretty efficient in knowing where the (in their eyes) 'bad elements' lived.
Interesting read for anyone interested in wo2 and ethics in doing business.
About MS, I am not surprised.
China is big market and there is a lot of money to be made.
Is it ethical?
Well is it ethical to do business with the US after the iraq WMD-lies?
Or with Europe for all I care for their involvement in Afghanistan?
At the end of the day, you can't do business with any government if you care the least bit about ethics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625858</id>
	<title>Re:The Best Kind of News</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1269617040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think Bill Gates wants to be the next <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armand\_Hammer" title="wikipedia.org">Armand Hammer?</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Bill Gates wants to be the next Armand Hammer ?
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Bill Gates wants to be the next Armand Hammer?
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625176</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625790</id>
	<title>Re:How good of them.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269616800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, because democracies and totalitarian dictatorships are morally identical. Grow up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because democracies and totalitarian dictatorships are morally identical .
Grow up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because democracies and totalitarian dictatorships are morally identical.
Grow up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625918</id>
	<title>Re:Torn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269617220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Would we want a Chinese company to come into our country and tell our government what to do? While I've seen a great deal of discussion about human rights surrounding these stories, I've seen precious little about sovereignty.</p></div><p>If our government was as oppressive as the Chinese government, then hell yes, I'd like foreign powers to pressure our government to improve its human rights record. And if foreign powers weren't willing to step up to the plate, foreign companies would be welcome. I value my freedom a lot more than a bunch of primitive tribalism. And the last thing I'd want is a company like Microsoft to come in and <i>collaborate</i> with my oppressive government.</p><p>As far as sovereignty goes, my view is that the legitimacy of a government, and hence its sovereignty, arises from the democratic will of a free people. There are no legitimate non-democratic states, so the question of mainland Chinese sovereignty is moot. The PRC is no more a legitimate state than the USSR was.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would we want a Chinese company to come into our country and tell our government what to do ?
While I 've seen a great deal of discussion about human rights surrounding these stories , I 've seen precious little about sovereignty.If our government was as oppressive as the Chinese government , then hell yes , I 'd like foreign powers to pressure our government to improve its human rights record .
And if foreign powers were n't willing to step up to the plate , foreign companies would be welcome .
I value my freedom a lot more than a bunch of primitive tribalism .
And the last thing I 'd want is a company like Microsoft to come in and collaborate with my oppressive government.As far as sovereignty goes , my view is that the legitimacy of a government , and hence its sovereignty , arises from the democratic will of a free people .
There are no legitimate non-democratic states , so the question of mainland Chinese sovereignty is moot .
The PRC is no more a legitimate state than the USSR was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would we want a Chinese company to come into our country and tell our government what to do?
While I've seen a great deal of discussion about human rights surrounding these stories, I've seen precious little about sovereignty.If our government was as oppressive as the Chinese government, then hell yes, I'd like foreign powers to pressure our government to improve its human rights record.
And if foreign powers weren't willing to step up to the plate, foreign companies would be welcome.
I value my freedom a lot more than a bunch of primitive tribalism.
And the last thing I'd want is a company like Microsoft to come in and collaborate with my oppressive government.As far as sovereignty goes, my view is that the legitimacy of a government, and hence its sovereignty, arises from the democratic will of a free people.
There are no legitimate non-democratic states, so the question of mainland Chinese sovereignty is moot.
The PRC is no more a legitimate state than the USSR was.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625712</id>
	<title>They seem happy to break laws everywhere else...</title>
	<author>TiberiusMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1269616440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...but in China they stick to them?  I mean, I know I'm not really pointing out anything new or deep here, but Microsoft seems to constantly come up with new ways to make me shake my head.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but in China they stick to them ?
I mean , I know I 'm not really pointing out anything new or deep here , but Microsoft seems to constantly come up with new ways to make me shake my head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but in China they stick to them?
I mean, I know I'm not really pointing out anything new or deep here, but Microsoft seems to constantly come up with new ways to make me shake my head.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626658</id>
	<title>Re:Torn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269619800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, this is bullshit. Its simple - curtailing freedom is a slippery slope. Anything that improves the freedom of expression is good in and of itself. I am an Indian and I hate these double standards that are applied to us - "freedom is not so important to them". This is just a moderate restatement of colonial attitudes. Anyway, I thought Americans hated government - or is that just Republicans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , this is bullshit .
Its simple - curtailing freedom is a slippery slope .
Anything that improves the freedom of expression is good in and of itself .
I am an Indian and I hate these double standards that are applied to us - " freedom is not so important to them " .
This is just a moderate restatement of colonial attitudes .
Anyway , I thought Americans hated government - or is that just Republicans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, this is bullshit.
Its simple - curtailing freedom is a slippery slope.
Anything that improves the freedom of expression is good in and of itself.
I am an Indian and I hate these double standards that are applied to us - "freedom is not so important to them".
This is just a moderate restatement of colonial attitudes.
Anyway, I thought Americans hated government - or is that just Republicans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626088</id>
	<title>"Obeying the law" =/= "Doing the Right Thing"</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1269617760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is true in the U.S. and in China.  If the government or the law is bad, then it is not right to respect the law.</p><p>Law and order is the most important and critical part of civilization.  But when it is used to harm people, it is no longer a supporting or contributing part of civilization and serves to undermine civilization.</p><p>Microsoft, you cannot hide behind "following the law" in this case.  You don't always follow the law.  You routinely manipulate and break the laws of the U.S. and of other nations.  You also see fit "buy" laws that serve your own interests.  "Following the law" can only be read as a convenient excuse from Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is true in the U.S. and in China .
If the government or the law is bad , then it is not right to respect the law.Law and order is the most important and critical part of civilization .
But when it is used to harm people , it is no longer a supporting or contributing part of civilization and serves to undermine civilization.Microsoft , you can not hide behind " following the law " in this case .
You do n't always follow the law .
You routinely manipulate and break the laws of the U.S. and of other nations .
You also see fit " buy " laws that serve your own interests .
" Following the law " can only be read as a convenient excuse from Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is true in the U.S. and in China.
If the government or the law is bad, then it is not right to respect the law.Law and order is the most important and critical part of civilization.
But when it is used to harm people, it is no longer a supporting or contributing part of civilization and serves to undermine civilization.Microsoft, you cannot hide behind "following the law" in this case.
You don't always follow the law.
You routinely manipulate and break the laws of the U.S. and of other nations.
You also see fit "buy" laws that serve your own interests.
"Following the law" can only be read as a convenient excuse from Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626302</id>
	<title>Re:Conflicted!</title>
	<author>pherthyl</author>
	<datestamp>1269618480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; Sorry but admiring Google for no longer censoring is like admiring someone for no longer beating their child.</p><p>That's not a good analogy at all.  Much better would be to say "Admiring Google for no longer censoring is like admiring the one person that stopped beating their child, while everyone else continues to do so."</p><p>We might not actually admire them, since we don't personally do business in China, so we can feel morally superior, but amongst their peers Google is doing an admirable thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Sorry but admiring Google for no longer censoring is like admiring someone for no longer beating their child.That 's not a good analogy at all .
Much better would be to say " Admiring Google for no longer censoring is like admiring the one person that stopped beating their child , while everyone else continues to do so .
" We might not actually admire them , since we do n't personally do business in China , so we can feel morally superior , but amongst their peers Google is doing an admirable thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; Sorry but admiring Google for no longer censoring is like admiring someone for no longer beating their child.That's not a good analogy at all.
Much better would be to say "Admiring Google for no longer censoring is like admiring the one person that stopped beating their child, while everyone else continues to do so.
"We might not actually admire them, since we don't personally do business in China, so we can feel morally superior, but amongst their peers Google is doing an admirable thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627300</id>
	<title>Re:Conflicted!</title>
	<author>DevStar</author>
	<datestamp>1269622500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's not a great analogy either. A better one would be
"Admiring Google for no longer censoring is like admiring the person who started beating their child because they said their child was a problem child and this would actually help them.  After beating their child more than anyone else beats their child they later realized that their child could actually fight back a little and then they said that they'd no longer beat their child because it was bad -- forgetting the reason they said they'd originally spank their child.  And then they condemn other people who are still spanking their children, because clearly the original reason for spanking children is no longer valid after they've stopped."

Or something like that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not a great analogy either .
A better one would be " Admiring Google for no longer censoring is like admiring the person who started beating their child because they said their child was a problem child and this would actually help them .
After beating their child more than anyone else beats their child they later realized that their child could actually fight back a little and then they said that they 'd no longer beat their child because it was bad -- forgetting the reason they said they 'd originally spank their child .
And then they condemn other people who are still spanking their children , because clearly the original reason for spanking children is no longer valid after they 've stopped .
" Or something like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not a great analogy either.
A better one would be
"Admiring Google for no longer censoring is like admiring the person who started beating their child because they said their child was a problem child and this would actually help them.
After beating their child more than anyone else beats their child they later realized that their child could actually fight back a little and then they said that they'd no longer beat their child because it was bad -- forgetting the reason they said they'd originally spank their child.
And then they condemn other people who are still spanking their children, because clearly the original reason for spanking children is no longer valid after they've stopped.
"

Or something like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627314</id>
	<title>Re:Conflicted!</title>
	<author>redJag</author>
	<datestamp>1269622500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I disagree.  There's nothing wrong with admiring growth of character.  I don't know if I agree Google's actions are truly based on character or just business, but that aside.. Maybe you were raised to be a perfect child and have never done wrong, just like I was, but you and I must acknowledge that not everyone was given that same opportunity.  Sure, doing it right the first time is PREFERRED, but being able to look at yourself and analyze something that you accepted as TRUTH because that's how you were raised and seeing how it was WRONG and reacting to that realization by GROWING is certainly admirable in my book.  It takes a strong person to do that.  I hope that I used enough caps to convey my point adequately..</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
There 's nothing wrong with admiring growth of character .
I do n't know if I agree Google 's actions are truly based on character or just business , but that aside.. Maybe you were raised to be a perfect child and have never done wrong , just like I was , but you and I must acknowledge that not everyone was given that same opportunity .
Sure , doing it right the first time is PREFERRED , but being able to look at yourself and analyze something that you accepted as TRUTH because that 's how you were raised and seeing how it was WRONG and reacting to that realization by GROWING is certainly admirable in my book .
It takes a strong person to do that .
I hope that I used enough caps to convey my point adequately. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
There's nothing wrong with admiring growth of character.
I don't know if I agree Google's actions are truly based on character or just business, but that aside.. Maybe you were raised to be a perfect child and have never done wrong, just like I was, but you and I must acknowledge that not everyone was given that same opportunity.
Sure, doing it right the first time is PREFERRED, but being able to look at yourself and analyze something that you accepted as TRUTH because that's how you were raised and seeing how it was WRONG and reacting to that realization by GROWING is certainly admirable in my book.
It takes a strong person to do that.
I hope that I used enough caps to convey my point adequately..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626502</id>
	<title>Wow - That's Awesome</title>
	<author>Petersko</author>
	<datestamp>1269619260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Usually there's a long chain that eventually causes an incident wherein <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's\_law" title="wikipedia.org">Godwin's Law</a> [wikipedia.org] is invoked, rendering the argument pointless and concluded. You got that right out of the way. Good on you.<br> <br>

Clearly you WOULD bring up Nazis, so ignore my signature.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Usually there 's a long chain that eventually causes an incident wherein Godwin 's Law [ wikipedia.org ] is invoked , rendering the argument pointless and concluded .
You got that right out of the way .
Good on you .
Clearly you WOULD bring up Nazis , so ignore my signature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usually there's a long chain that eventually causes an incident wherein Godwin's Law [wikipedia.org] is invoked, rendering the argument pointless and concluded.
You got that right out of the way.
Good on you.
Clearly you WOULD bring up Nazis, so ignore my signature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626204</id>
	<title>hypocrisy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269618180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The US just passed national healthcare which permits the Fed Gov to reach into our medical records, our bank accounts, meddle with our health choices, and mandate purchase of services by all citizens on penalty of fines and-or imprisonment. Are we really going to chastise the Chinese for a little censorship? At the rate the federal gov is nationalizing businesses and services, and seizing power, China will be more open, free, and financially solvent in a decade. Don't think this is true? On what authority does the President have the right to "shut off the internet"? If he was seeking authority to "shut off the press" what would you say? Think about it. WAKE UP you lazy ignorant sheep or you will soon have the despotism you so richly deserve.</p><p>Question: What business is it of the Fed Government whether you use a tanning bed? Should people from Minnesota get a federal tanning bed waiver to avoid 3rd degree sunburns on Spring break? Why should a representative from Texas or California be deciding this for people living in Wisconsin? We had independent states for a reason, and you 'big fed gov will solve all my problems' types are destroying liberty and individualism. You can't just manage yourself, your family, or your State, you have to IMPOSE your will on EVERYONE.  I'd much rather have my speech censored than my medical decisions made by faceless and unaccountable (to me) Washington bureaucrats. I don't get to vote in the other 49 states. They do NOT represent me!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US just passed national healthcare which permits the Fed Gov to reach into our medical records , our bank accounts , meddle with our health choices , and mandate purchase of services by all citizens on penalty of fines and-or imprisonment .
Are we really going to chastise the Chinese for a little censorship ?
At the rate the federal gov is nationalizing businesses and services , and seizing power , China will be more open , free , and financially solvent in a decade .
Do n't think this is true ?
On what authority does the President have the right to " shut off the internet " ?
If he was seeking authority to " shut off the press " what would you say ?
Think about it .
WAKE UP you lazy ignorant sheep or you will soon have the despotism you so richly deserve.Question : What business is it of the Fed Government whether you use a tanning bed ?
Should people from Minnesota get a federal tanning bed waiver to avoid 3rd degree sunburns on Spring break ?
Why should a representative from Texas or California be deciding this for people living in Wisconsin ?
We had independent states for a reason , and you 'big fed gov will solve all my problems ' types are destroying liberty and individualism .
You ca n't just manage yourself , your family , or your State , you have to IMPOSE your will on EVERYONE .
I 'd much rather have my speech censored than my medical decisions made by faceless and unaccountable ( to me ) Washington bureaucrats .
I do n't get to vote in the other 49 states .
They do NOT represent me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US just passed national healthcare which permits the Fed Gov to reach into our medical records, our bank accounts, meddle with our health choices, and mandate purchase of services by all citizens on penalty of fines and-or imprisonment.
Are we really going to chastise the Chinese for a little censorship?
At the rate the federal gov is nationalizing businesses and services, and seizing power, China will be more open, free, and financially solvent in a decade.
Don't think this is true?
On what authority does the President have the right to "shut off the internet"?
If he was seeking authority to "shut off the press" what would you say?
Think about it.
WAKE UP you lazy ignorant sheep or you will soon have the despotism you so richly deserve.Question: What business is it of the Fed Government whether you use a tanning bed?
Should people from Minnesota get a federal tanning bed waiver to avoid 3rd degree sunburns on Spring break?
Why should a representative from Texas or California be deciding this for people living in Wisconsin?
We had independent states for a reason, and you 'big fed gov will solve all my problems' types are destroying liberty and individualism.
You can't just manage yourself, your family, or your State, you have to IMPOSE your will on EVERYONE.
I'd much rather have my speech censored than my medical decisions made by faceless and unaccountable (to me) Washington bureaucrats.
I don't get to vote in the other 49 states.
They do NOT represent me!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626040</id>
	<title>Re:How good of them.</title>
	<author>PNutts</author>
	<datestamp>1269617640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's always nice to see companies following local laws.</p></div><p>Also from the article:<br>"This section relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations of additional sources. (February 2010)"</p><p>Also, IBM's response:<br><a href="http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/828.wss" title="ibm.com" rel="nofollow">http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/828.wss</a> [ibm.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's always nice to see companies following local laws.Also from the article : " This section relies largely or entirely upon a single source .
Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations of additional sources .
( February 2010 ) " Also , IBM 's response : http : //www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/828.wss [ ibm.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's always nice to see companies following local laws.Also from the article:"This section relies largely or entirely upon a single source.
Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations of additional sources.
(February 2010)"Also, IBM's response:http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/828.wss [ibm.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626600</id>
	<title>Re:Conflicted!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269619620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your attitude that companies should never do wrong in the first place is a good one, but not very realistic.  Most companies are run by humans, and humans do make mistake, and sometimes compromise their principles.  That is normal.  But learning and correcting behavior is the admirable part of humanity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your attitude that companies should never do wrong in the first place is a good one , but not very realistic .
Most companies are run by humans , and humans do make mistake , and sometimes compromise their principles .
That is normal .
But learning and correcting behavior is the admirable part of humanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your attitude that companies should never do wrong in the first place is a good one, but not very realistic.
Most companies are run by humans, and humans do make mistake, and sometimes compromise their principles.
That is normal.
But learning and correcting behavior is the admirable part of humanity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626236</id>
	<title>+1 for Google</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269618300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Their stance takes on even greater meaning in the face of their competition being spineless, unethical slime. Like that's a big surprise to anybody who's paid any attention to Microsoft's business practices wile not partaking of the Kool-Aid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their stance takes on even greater meaning in the face of their competition being spineless , unethical slime .
Like that 's a big surprise to anybody who 's paid any attention to Microsoft 's business practices wile not partaking of the Kool-Aid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their stance takes on even greater meaning in the face of their competition being spineless, unethical slime.
Like that's a big surprise to anybody who's paid any attention to Microsoft's business practices wile not partaking of the Kool-Aid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626788</id>
	<title>Re:It does not make it evil</title>
	<author>mikechant</author>
	<datestamp>1269620280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Furthermore, I wish companies would stay away from politics altogether: no contributions to parties, no statements about how good or bad is a local government. Follow the local laws, and leave politics to the country's citizens.</i></p><p>There is a problem with this attitude in China. The rule of law there is entirely subservient to the party with not a shred of judicial independance. For example, China has laws 'guaranteeing' various freedoms, but they are completely worthless if you oppose 'the will of the party' in any way. In practice, the law in China is exactly what 'the party' says it is on any given day.</p><p>So by 'following local laws' you actually become an arm of 'the  Party'.</p><p>Thus you *are* involved in politics whether you like it or not. And if you are a company offering information related services, you *will* be required to directly assist the party in its repressive aims, for example by identifying 'subversives', leading to their lengthy imprisonment or ultimately even execution for simply criticizing their goverment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Furthermore , I wish companies would stay away from politics altogether : no contributions to parties , no statements about how good or bad is a local government .
Follow the local laws , and leave politics to the country 's citizens.There is a problem with this attitude in China .
The rule of law there is entirely subservient to the party with not a shred of judicial independance .
For example , China has laws 'guaranteeing ' various freedoms , but they are completely worthless if you oppose 'the will of the party ' in any way .
In practice , the law in China is exactly what 'the party ' says it is on any given day.So by 'following local laws ' you actually become an arm of 'the Party'.Thus you * are * involved in politics whether you like it or not .
And if you are a company offering information related services , you * will * be required to directly assist the party in its repressive aims , for example by identifying 'subversives ' , leading to their lengthy imprisonment or ultimately even execution for simply criticizing their goverment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Furthermore, I wish companies would stay away from politics altogether: no contributions to parties, no statements about how good or bad is a local government.
Follow the local laws, and leave politics to the country's citizens.There is a problem with this attitude in China.
The rule of law there is entirely subservient to the party with not a shred of judicial independance.
For example, China has laws 'guaranteeing' various freedoms, but they are completely worthless if you oppose 'the will of the party' in any way.
In practice, the law in China is exactly what 'the party' says it is on any given day.So by 'following local laws' you actually become an arm of 'the  Party'.Thus you *are* involved in politics whether you like it or not.
And if you are a company offering information related services, you *will* be required to directly assist the party in its repressive aims, for example by identifying 'subversives', leading to their lengthy imprisonment or ultimately even execution for simply criticizing their goverment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625636</id>
	<title>Re:How good of them.</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1269616140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems kind of thin,<br>It happened after the Nazi's took over IBM German subsidiary.  Even the reference that they got technology and help from the Polish offices doesn't sound that damming since Germany had already INVADED Poland at the time. I doubt that IBM had any real control over those offices at the time it happened.</p><p>IBM does have a long history of being the meanest nastiest competitor on the planet but I really think trying to blame them for the Holocaust is pretty unfounded.</p><p>The oddest historical hookup I remember how well Ford worked with pre WWII USSR they did all sorts of deals with Stalin and company. Which if you think about it should really make your head hurt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems kind of thin,It happened after the Nazi 's took over IBM German subsidiary .
Even the reference that they got technology and help from the Polish offices does n't sound that damming since Germany had already INVADED Poland at the time .
I doubt that IBM had any real control over those offices at the time it happened.IBM does have a long history of being the meanest nastiest competitor on the planet but I really think trying to blame them for the Holocaust is pretty unfounded.The oddest historical hookup I remember how well Ford worked with pre WWII USSR they did all sorts of deals with Stalin and company .
Which if you think about it should really make your head hurt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems kind of thin,It happened after the Nazi's took over IBM German subsidiary.
Even the reference that they got technology and help from the Polish offices doesn't sound that damming since Germany had already INVADED Poland at the time.
I doubt that IBM had any real control over those offices at the time it happened.IBM does have a long history of being the meanest nastiest competitor on the planet but I really think trying to blame them for the Holocaust is pretty unfounded.The oddest historical hookup I remember how well Ford worked with pre WWII USSR they did all sorts of deals with Stalin and company.
Which if you think about it should really make your head hurt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626376</id>
	<title>How we /.ers imagine it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269618720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure this is what a lot of us are picturing.</p><p>Brin [sitting at a conference table, looking at the camera uncomfortably]: "You know, we said we wouldn't be evil, but then we were a little evil. But we didn't like it. So we're going to try being less evil again. That seems better."</p><p>Ballmer [smoking a cigar, in bed with Satan]: "What's that? Dominate China in Google's absence by cooperating with tyranny? Hahahaha! What's the DOWNside!?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure this is what a lot of us are picturing.Brin [ sitting at a conference table , looking at the camera uncomfortably ] : " You know , we said we would n't be evil , but then we were a little evil .
But we did n't like it .
So we 're going to try being less evil again .
That seems better .
" Ballmer [ smoking a cigar , in bed with Satan ] : " What 's that ?
Dominate China in Google 's absence by cooperating with tyranny ?
Hahahaha ! What 's the DOWNside ! ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure this is what a lot of us are picturing.Brin [sitting at a conference table, looking at the camera uncomfortably]: "You know, we said we wouldn't be evil, but then we were a little evil.
But we didn't like it.
So we're going to try being less evil again.
That seems better.
"Ballmer [smoking a cigar, in bed with Satan]: "What's that?
Dominate China in Google's absence by cooperating with tyranny?
Hahahaha! What's the DOWNside!?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625604</id>
	<title>Re:How good of them.</title>
	<author>MoellerPlesset2</author>
	<datestamp>1269616020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It's always nice to see companies following local laws.</i> <br> <br>

Examples of immoral behavior aside, yes it is. <br>
If a country has say, a ban on advertising cigarettes to children, then that's a perfectly sane thing to comply with. <br>
If a country doesn't have the draconian copyright laws the US has, refusing to enforce them there is perfectly sane as well.<br> <br>
OTOH, assisting in silencing political speech is hardly moral. If only there was some universal minimum standard for what's okay and what's not...<br> <br>
Oh right.. <b>there is:</b> <a href="http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/" title="un.org">The Universal Declaration of Human Rights</a> [un.org]. (Which didn't exist in the 1930's, although I don't feel that excuses IBM - considering the Allies penalized the German corporations who assisted the Holocaust)<br>
And from that declaration, it's entirely clear-cut the first two examples are fine, and the third isn't okay. While we all know that China doesn't give a damn about the UDHR, it doesn't change the fact that they've ratified it (and in fact, Nationalist China was involved in drafting it). They can't legitimately complain about 'cultural bias' or respecting their system or whatever. <br> <br>
It's a matter of holding them to their own words. And holding our corporations responsible to follow at least those basic rights.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's always nice to see companies following local laws .
Examples of immoral behavior aside , yes it is .
If a country has say , a ban on advertising cigarettes to children , then that 's a perfectly sane thing to comply with .
If a country does n't have the draconian copyright laws the US has , refusing to enforce them there is perfectly sane as well .
OTOH , assisting in silencing political speech is hardly moral .
If only there was some universal minimum standard for what 's okay and what 's not.. . Oh right.. there is : The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [ un.org ] .
( Which did n't exist in the 1930 's , although I do n't feel that excuses IBM - considering the Allies penalized the German corporations who assisted the Holocaust ) And from that declaration , it 's entirely clear-cut the first two examples are fine , and the third is n't okay .
While we all know that China does n't give a damn about the UDHR , it does n't change the fact that they 've ratified it ( and in fact , Nationalist China was involved in drafting it ) .
They ca n't legitimately complain about 'cultural bias ' or respecting their system or whatever .
It 's a matter of holding them to their own words .
And holding our corporations responsible to follow at least those basic rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's always nice to see companies following local laws.
Examples of immoral behavior aside, yes it is.
If a country has say, a ban on advertising cigarettes to children, then that's a perfectly sane thing to comply with.
If a country doesn't have the draconian copyright laws the US has, refusing to enforce them there is perfectly sane as well.
OTOH, assisting in silencing political speech is hardly moral.
If only there was some universal minimum standard for what's okay and what's not... 
Oh right.. there is: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [un.org].
(Which didn't exist in the 1930's, although I don't feel that excuses IBM - considering the Allies penalized the German corporations who assisted the Holocaust)
And from that declaration, it's entirely clear-cut the first two examples are fine, and the third isn't okay.
While we all know that China doesn't give a damn about the UDHR, it doesn't change the fact that they've ratified it (and in fact, Nationalist China was involved in drafting it).
They can't legitimately complain about 'cultural bias' or respecting their system or whatever.
It's a matter of holding them to their own words.
And holding our corporations responsible to follow at least those basic rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31628670</id>
	<title>Re:Torn</title>
	<author>Stradivarius</author>
	<datestamp>1269626940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm kind of torn by this whole China/Google/Microsoft thing. While I'm not a fan of the Chinese government, who are we to say what they should and shouldn't allow? Would we want a Chinese company to come into our country and tell our government what to do? While I've seen a great deal of discussion about human rights surrounding these stories, I've seen precious little about sovereignty.</p></div><p>China has sovereignty.  So do nations that are criticizing certain of its current behaviors.  Sovereignty just means China has the power to make the laws of its land.  Which it clearly does.  Sovereignty does not mean immunity to criticism by your peers, despite the Communist Party's wish that this be so.</p><p>The US is sovereign but has received lots of foreign criticism for nearly every policy it has, from the structure of its health care system, to capital punishment, to our numerous activities abroad.  Sometimes we accept the criticism and change something, sometimes we don't. But either way, while the criticism can sting, the dialog serves as an important sanity check for every nation.</p><p>None of us will become wiser and more moral, as individuals or as nations, if we refuse to discuss moral issues with each other. Even when that creates uncomfortable moments.  The Chinese government may not like criticism over how it treats its citizens, and the West may be tempted not to rock the boat, but these sorts of discussions are necessary.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Would we want a Chinese company to come into our country and tell our government what to do?</p> </div><p>In the US, foreign companies are welcome to come to our country.  They are welcome to ask the government to change its policy on a given matter.  We have free speech here, after all.  If the change makes sense to enough of us, we'll do it.  Now would some people in the US complain about the nationality of the speaker, rather than the correctness of the speaker's argument? Probably. But when someone attacks the speaker's nationality rather than their speech, it's often because they want to distract you from the correctness of the speech.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm kind of torn by this whole China/Google/Microsoft thing .
While I 'm not a fan of the Chinese government , who are we to say what they should and should n't allow ?
Would we want a Chinese company to come into our country and tell our government what to do ?
While I 've seen a great deal of discussion about human rights surrounding these stories , I 've seen precious little about sovereignty.China has sovereignty .
So do nations that are criticizing certain of its current behaviors .
Sovereignty just means China has the power to make the laws of its land .
Which it clearly does .
Sovereignty does not mean immunity to criticism by your peers , despite the Communist Party 's wish that this be so.The US is sovereign but has received lots of foreign criticism for nearly every policy it has , from the structure of its health care system , to capital punishment , to our numerous activities abroad .
Sometimes we accept the criticism and change something , sometimes we do n't .
But either way , while the criticism can sting , the dialog serves as an important sanity check for every nation.None of us will become wiser and more moral , as individuals or as nations , if we refuse to discuss moral issues with each other .
Even when that creates uncomfortable moments .
The Chinese government may not like criticism over how it treats its citizens , and the West may be tempted not to rock the boat , but these sorts of discussions are necessary.Would we want a Chinese company to come into our country and tell our government what to do ?
In the US , foreign companies are welcome to come to our country .
They are welcome to ask the government to change its policy on a given matter .
We have free speech here , after all .
If the change makes sense to enough of us , we 'll do it .
Now would some people in the US complain about the nationality of the speaker , rather than the correctness of the speaker 's argument ?
Probably. But when someone attacks the speaker 's nationality rather than their speech , it 's often because they want to distract you from the correctness of the speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm kind of torn by this whole China/Google/Microsoft thing.
While I'm not a fan of the Chinese government, who are we to say what they should and shouldn't allow?
Would we want a Chinese company to come into our country and tell our government what to do?
While I've seen a great deal of discussion about human rights surrounding these stories, I've seen precious little about sovereignty.China has sovereignty.
So do nations that are criticizing certain of its current behaviors.
Sovereignty just means China has the power to make the laws of its land.
Which it clearly does.
Sovereignty does not mean immunity to criticism by your peers, despite the Communist Party's wish that this be so.The US is sovereign but has received lots of foreign criticism for nearly every policy it has, from the structure of its health care system, to capital punishment, to our numerous activities abroad.
Sometimes we accept the criticism and change something, sometimes we don't.
But either way, while the criticism can sting, the dialog serves as an important sanity check for every nation.None of us will become wiser and more moral, as individuals or as nations, if we refuse to discuss moral issues with each other.
Even when that creates uncomfortable moments.
The Chinese government may not like criticism over how it treats its citizens, and the West may be tempted not to rock the boat, but these sorts of discussions are necessary.Would we want a Chinese company to come into our country and tell our government what to do?
In the US, foreign companies are welcome to come to our country.
They are welcome to ask the government to change its policy on a given matter.
We have free speech here, after all.
If the change makes sense to enough of us, we'll do it.
Now would some people in the US complain about the nationality of the speaker, rather than the correctness of the speaker's argument?
Probably. But when someone attacks the speaker's nationality rather than their speech, it's often because they want to distract you from the correctness of the speech.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625686</id>
	<title>Hypocrisy on law, courtesy of offshoring.</title>
	<author>sethstorm</author>
	<datestamp>1269616320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft rejected Brin's critique, saying it would continue to obey local laws on censorship in China."</p></div><p>Interesting how it's fine to obey the law to the letter in China(and about any other offshoring destination), but find every way to get around obeying it in the US.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft rejected Brin 's critique , saying it would continue to obey local laws on censorship in China .
" Interesting how it 's fine to obey the law to the letter in China ( and about any other offshoring destination ) , but find every way to get around obeying it in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft rejected Brin's critique, saying it would continue to obey local laws on censorship in China.
"Interesting how it's fine to obey the law to the letter in China(and about any other offshoring destination), but find every way to get around obeying it in the US.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31709684</id>
	<title>Re:Conflicted!</title>
	<author>ukyoCE</author>
	<datestamp>1270200720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't every search engine censor results in the US as well?  Just not as egregiously as China.</p><p>I take it you think every search engine (heck, every company that does business with china) is pure unadulterated evil?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't every search engine censor results in the US as well ?
Just not as egregiously as China.I take it you think every search engine ( heck , every company that does business with china ) is pure unadulterated evil ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't every search engine censor results in the US as well?
Just not as egregiously as China.I take it you think every search engine (heck, every company that does business with china) is pure unadulterated evil?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627714</id>
	<title>Re:Conflicted!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269624060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, Microsoft's policy may be more noble than you may think. No matter how many companies pull out, China is not going to change their policies. Deprave the chinese people from these services and the government may end up providing it itself, and holding a monopoly. Right now, their laws, as harsh as they may be, still may allow for things to leak through loopholes or smart users. Open the doors for the government to have a monopoly and suddenly you actually make it worse, now the government can decide exactly what the people can look at.</p><p>Note this entire thing with Google has nothing to do with them being against censorship, they implemented the censorship themselves. It's all about being annoyed of them being hacked and trying to strong arm some one to stop the attacks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Microsoft 's policy may be more noble than you may think .
No matter how many companies pull out , China is not going to change their policies .
Deprave the chinese people from these services and the government may end up providing it itself , and holding a monopoly .
Right now , their laws , as harsh as they may be , still may allow for things to leak through loopholes or smart users .
Open the doors for the government to have a monopoly and suddenly you actually make it worse , now the government can decide exactly what the people can look at.Note this entire thing with Google has nothing to do with them being against censorship , they implemented the censorship themselves .
It 's all about being annoyed of them being hacked and trying to strong arm some one to stop the attacks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Microsoft's policy may be more noble than you may think.
No matter how many companies pull out, China is not going to change their policies.
Deprave the chinese people from these services and the government may end up providing it itself, and holding a monopoly.
Right now, their laws, as harsh as they may be, still may allow for things to leak through loopholes or smart users.
Open the doors for the government to have a monopoly and suddenly you actually make it worse, now the government can decide exactly what the people can look at.Note this entire thing with Google has nothing to do with them being against censorship, they implemented the censorship themselves.
It's all about being annoyed of them being hacked and trying to strong arm some one to stop the attacks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627164</id>
	<title>It's pretty obvious...</title>
	<author>ArtFart</author>
	<datestamp>1269621960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reason Microsoft is continuing to do business in China is precisely the same reason Willie Sutton stated for robbing banks:  "That's where the money is."</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason Microsoft is continuing to do business in China is precisely the same reason Willie Sutton stated for robbing banks : " That 's where the money is .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason Microsoft is continuing to do business in China is precisely the same reason Willie Sutton stated for robbing banks:  "That's where the money is.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625210</id>
	<title>Conflicted!</title>
	<author>Sporkinum</author>
	<datestamp>1269614160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am conflicted! I like Bing's policy on retention of searches, and dislike their China policy. I admire Google's new policy on China, but dislike their privacy policies in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am conflicted !
I like Bing 's policy on retention of searches , and dislike their China policy .
I admire Google 's new policy on China , but dislike their privacy policies in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am conflicted!
I like Bing's policy on retention of searches, and dislike their China policy.
I admire Google's new policy on China, but dislike their privacy policies in the US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627000</id>
	<title>Help break the censorship engine in China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269621120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does China allow internet access at all?  The answer is that they want access to scientific and engineering information, not news and uncensored information about politics.</p><p>If you control a web page with any scientific and technical information on it, please add to your page some of the search terms that China censors.  You can add it in non-obvious form-- white on white, just anything that the censoring software can see.  Help break the censorship engine, by making it censor the stuff that they don't want to be censored.</p><p>This site, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet\_censorship\_in\_the\_People's\_Republic\_of\_China" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">List of words censored by search engines in the People's Republic of China</a> [wikipedia.org] may give you some suggestions.</p><p>(I suggest that you add the content in Chinese characters, not merely in English).</p><p>And also check out <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet\_censorship\_in\_the\_People's\_Republic\_of\_China" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Internet censorship in the PRC</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does China allow internet access at all ?
The answer is that they want access to scientific and engineering information , not news and uncensored information about politics.If you control a web page with any scientific and technical information on it , please add to your page some of the search terms that China censors .
You can add it in non-obvious form-- white on white , just anything that the censoring software can see .
Help break the censorship engine , by making it censor the stuff that they do n't want to be censored.This site , List of words censored by search engines in the People 's Republic of China [ wikipedia.org ] may give you some suggestions .
( I suggest that you add the content in Chinese characters , not merely in English ) .And also check out Internet censorship in the PRC [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does China allow internet access at all?
The answer is that they want access to scientific and engineering information, not news and uncensored information about politics.If you control a web page with any scientific and technical information on it, please add to your page some of the search terms that China censors.
You can add it in non-obvious form-- white on white, just anything that the censoring software can see.
Help break the censorship engine, by making it censor the stuff that they don't want to be censored.This site, List of words censored by search engines in the People's Republic of China [wikipedia.org] may give you some suggestions.
(I suggest that you add the content in Chinese characters, not merely in English).And also check out Internet censorship in the PRC [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625302</id>
	<title>Microsloth fits in..</title>
	<author>whizbang77045</author>
	<datestamp>1269614640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd think they'd fit right in in a controlled society.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd think they 'd fit right in in a controlled society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd think they'd fit right in in a controlled society.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625238</id>
	<title>The true motives</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1269614340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And now we see Google's true motivation. They had this much -&gt;.- market share in China, so they pull out due to Moral reasons and toss the grenade over the fence to Microsoft. Microsoft, being the dip shits they are, catch the grenade and run for the end zone in their Heisman pose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And now we see Google 's true motivation .
They had this much - &gt; .- market share in China , so they pull out due to Moral reasons and toss the grenade over the fence to Microsoft .
Microsoft , being the dip shits they are , catch the grenade and run for the end zone in their Heisman pose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And now we see Google's true motivation.
They had this much -&gt;.- market share in China, so they pull out due to Moral reasons and toss the grenade over the fence to Microsoft.
Microsoft, being the dip shits they are, catch the grenade and run for the end zone in their Heisman pose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626596</id>
	<title>Tell that to congress</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1269619620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they have started criticizing ms for their policy in china. its not like how it was back in bush era, is it microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they have started criticizing ms for their policy in china .
its not like how it was back in bush era , is it microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they have started criticizing ms for their policy in china.
its not like how it was back in bush era, is it microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31630040</id>
	<title>Re:Torn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269631440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The sovereignty thing is a smokescreen, IMO, an attempt to re-cast the issue in nationalistic terms as PR damage control. The issue is that China's government follows neither their own laws nor the laws of other nations - it's the recent hack attacks I'm referring to here. (But the general business environment in China is hostile overall, too). The fallout of the move to Hong Kong would be another blatantly obvious example - what google did there was perfectly legal by Chinese law, and yet they still got blocked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The sovereignty thing is a smokescreen , IMO , an attempt to re-cast the issue in nationalistic terms as PR damage control .
The issue is that China 's government follows neither their own laws nor the laws of other nations - it 's the recent hack attacks I 'm referring to here .
( But the general business environment in China is hostile overall , too ) .
The fallout of the move to Hong Kong would be another blatantly obvious example - what google did there was perfectly legal by Chinese law , and yet they still got blocked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sovereignty thing is a smokescreen, IMO, an attempt to re-cast the issue in nationalistic terms as PR damage control.
The issue is that China's government follows neither their own laws nor the laws of other nations - it's the recent hack attacks I'm referring to here.
(But the general business environment in China is hostile overall, too).
The fallout of the move to Hong Kong would be another blatantly obvious example - what google did there was perfectly legal by Chinese law, and yet they still got blocked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627336</id>
	<title>Brin is a complete hypocrite</title>
	<author>krapski</author>
	<datestamp>1269622620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Google hadn't initially complied with Chinese authorities, then his words would have substance. As it is, he is just a hypocrite. In actual fact, he, like the vast majority of corporates, only cares about the mighty $$$. He sounds like he is just whining about his company's inability to operate offshore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google had n't initially complied with Chinese authorities , then his words would have substance .
As it is , he is just a hypocrite .
In actual fact , he , like the vast majority of corporates , only cares about the mighty $ $ $ .
He sounds like he is just whining about his company 's inability to operate offshore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google hadn't initially complied with Chinese authorities, then his words would have substance.
As it is, he is just a hypocrite.
In actual fact, he, like the vast majority of corporates, only cares about the mighty $$$.
He sounds like he is just whining about his company's inability to operate offshore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625882</id>
	<title>Re:Torn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269617100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>That would depend on whether you are prepared to recognize the sovereignty of totalitiarian dictatorships that torture and murder their own people.

Dictators (and their cronies)  have no right to say what may happen in their own country, let alone anyone else's. They lose those rights the moment they seize power. All Microsoft is doing is helping the Chinse dictatorship to oppress their own people. For the religious amongst us, think Judas and the money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would depend on whether you are prepared to recognize the sovereignty of totalitiarian dictatorships that torture and murder their own people .
Dictators ( and their cronies ) have no right to say what may happen in their own country , let alone anyone else 's .
They lose those rights the moment they seize power .
All Microsoft is doing is helping the Chinse dictatorship to oppress their own people .
For the religious amongst us , think Judas and the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would depend on whether you are prepared to recognize the sovereignty of totalitiarian dictatorships that torture and murder their own people.
Dictators (and their cronies)  have no right to say what may happen in their own country, let alone anyone else's.
They lose those rights the moment they seize power.
All Microsoft is doing is helping the Chinse dictatorship to oppress their own people.
For the religious amongst us, think Judas and the money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625414</id>
	<title>Re:Torn</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1269615060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>While I've seen a great deal of discussion about human rights surrounding these stories, I've seen precious little about sovereignty.</i>
<p>
Yeah the whole Treaty of Westphalia thing is like so fine minutes ago. It's been repeatedly violated, of course, (US -&gt; Granada, US-&gt; Bay of Pigs, US -&gt; Iraq 2003, Germany -&gt; Poland 1939, USSR -&gt; Hungary 1958, etc. etc.) but the point was that the principle remained. Now, with the Bush Doctrine of "we'll bomb the crap out of anyone we feel like" has become the preemptive SOP, sovereignty has become a secondary issue. What the Google operation unmasks is the fig leaf that is government itself. Government is simply the means by which the ruling class projects and protects its interests.Completely amoral and unmoored from historical notions of continuity and reciprocity, it is now a Hobbesian war of all (industrial systems) vs all (industrial systems) over the dwindling resources to feed said systems.
</p><p>
At least the obvious is now much more obvious to ever larger groups of ever stupider people.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I 've seen a great deal of discussion about human rights surrounding these stories , I 've seen precious little about sovereignty .
Yeah the whole Treaty of Westphalia thing is like so fine minutes ago .
It 's been repeatedly violated , of course , ( US - &gt; Granada , US- &gt; Bay of Pigs , US - &gt; Iraq 2003 , Germany - &gt; Poland 1939 , USSR - &gt; Hungary 1958 , etc .
etc. ) but the point was that the principle remained .
Now , with the Bush Doctrine of " we 'll bomb the crap out of anyone we feel like " has become the preemptive SOP , sovereignty has become a secondary issue .
What the Google operation unmasks is the fig leaf that is government itself .
Government is simply the means by which the ruling class projects and protects its interests.Completely amoral and unmoored from historical notions of continuity and reciprocity , it is now a Hobbesian war of all ( industrial systems ) vs all ( industrial systems ) over the dwindling resources to feed said systems .
At least the obvious is now much more obvious to ever larger groups of ever stupider people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I've seen a great deal of discussion about human rights surrounding these stories, I've seen precious little about sovereignty.
Yeah the whole Treaty of Westphalia thing is like so fine minutes ago.
It's been repeatedly violated, of course, (US -&gt; Granada, US-&gt; Bay of Pigs, US -&gt; Iraq 2003, Germany -&gt; Poland 1939, USSR -&gt; Hungary 1958, etc.
etc.) but the point was that the principle remained.
Now, with the Bush Doctrine of "we'll bomb the crap out of anyone we feel like" has become the preemptive SOP, sovereignty has become a secondary issue.
What the Google operation unmasks is the fig leaf that is government itself.
Government is simply the means by which the ruling class projects and protects its interests.Completely amoral and unmoored from historical notions of continuity and reciprocity, it is now a Hobbesian war of all (industrial systems) vs all (industrial systems) over the dwindling resources to feed said systems.
At least the obvious is now much more obvious to ever larger groups of ever stupider people.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31628544</id>
	<title>Re:Conflicted!</title>
	<author>teko\_teko</author>
	<datestamp>1269626400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sorry but admiring Google for no longer  censoring is like admiring someone for no longer beating their child.<br>Yes I am glad it stopped but it should have never started.</p></div><p>Yes, but what if the government forces you to beat your child or you will be kicked out from the country (or worse: got jailed)?</p><p>Well, maybe not that extreme as "beating your own child", but you get the picture.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry but admiring Google for no longer censoring is like admiring someone for no longer beating their child.Yes I am glad it stopped but it should have never started.Yes , but what if the government forces you to beat your child or you will be kicked out from the country ( or worse : got jailed ) ? Well , maybe not that extreme as " beating your own child " , but you get the picture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry but admiring Google for no longer  censoring is like admiring someone for no longer beating their child.Yes I am glad it stopped but it should have never started.Yes, but what if the government forces you to beat your child or you will be kicked out from the country (or worse: got jailed)?Well, maybe not that extreme as "beating your own child", but you get the picture.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625282</id>
	<title>MS Staying in CN?</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1269614520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gee, what a surprise. That was hard to predict. Not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gee , what a surprise .
That was hard to predict .
Not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gee, what a surprise.
That was hard to predict.
Not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627542</id>
	<title>Is it an old Chinese proverb which teaches that ..</title>
	<author>Jerry</author>
	<datestamp>1269623400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Birds of a feather flock together?</p><p>Microsoft, the home of the secret OEM agreements, the secret Novell agreements,  the DRM, James Plamondon's "Technical Evangelists", James Pendergast's Astroturfing email from cemetery residences, countless cherry pickings of small startups, and who never saw a piece of BSD code they didn't like, nor did they return anything back to the BSD except a EULA, the list goes on and on, must feel right at home in China.   It's obvious neither Ballmer nor Gates object see NO moral dilemma in giving up the of identities of freedom loving Chinese in exchange for profits.   The Nazi goons used a similar excuse - "just following orders".   As long as they can fall back on the US Constitution and continue to bribe US Congressmen (a.k.a. "campaign contributions") for special favors what do they care about human rights?  Nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Birds of a feather flock together ? Microsoft , the home of the secret OEM agreements , the secret Novell agreements , the DRM , James Plamondon 's " Technical Evangelists " , James Pendergast 's Astroturfing email from cemetery residences , countless cherry pickings of small startups , and who never saw a piece of BSD code they did n't like , nor did they return anything back to the BSD except a EULA , the list goes on and on , must feel right at home in China .
It 's obvious neither Ballmer nor Gates object see NO moral dilemma in giving up the of identities of freedom loving Chinese in exchange for profits .
The Nazi goons used a similar excuse - " just following orders " .
As long as they can fall back on the US Constitution and continue to bribe US Congressmen ( a.k.a .
" campaign contributions " ) for special favors what do they care about human rights ?
Nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Birds of a feather flock together?Microsoft, the home of the secret OEM agreements, the secret Novell agreements,  the DRM, James Plamondon's "Technical Evangelists", James Pendergast's Astroturfing email from cemetery residences, countless cherry pickings of small startups, and who never saw a piece of BSD code they didn't like, nor did they return anything back to the BSD except a EULA, the list goes on and on, must feel right at home in China.
It's obvious neither Ballmer nor Gates object see NO moral dilemma in giving up the of identities of freedom loving Chinese in exchange for profits.
The Nazi goons used a similar excuse - "just following orders".
As long as they can fall back on the US Constitution and continue to bribe US Congressmen (a.k.a.
"campaign contributions") for special favors what do they care about human rights?
Nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625378</id>
	<title>Re:Torn</title>
	<author>DigitalReverend</author>
	<datestamp>1269614940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I take it you don't view censorship as a violation of human rights?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I take it you do n't view censorship as a violation of human rights ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I take it you don't view censorship as a violation of human rights?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625458</id>
	<title>Birds of a feather...</title>
	<author>denis-The-menace</author>
	<datestamp>1269615300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Birds of a feather flock together.</p><p>This will be interesting seeing 2 back-stabbers "playing nice" but who will stab the other first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Birds of a feather flock together.This will be interesting seeing 2 back-stabbers " playing nice " but who will stab the other first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Birds of a feather flock together.This will be interesting seeing 2 back-stabbers "playing nice" but who will stab the other first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626398</id>
	<title>Re:Conflicted!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269618840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They initially did it because they thought they could change the system from the inside far better than they could from the outside. They may have been naive, but not evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They initially did it because they thought they could change the system from the inside far better than they could from the outside .
They may have been naive , but not evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They initially did it because they thought they could change the system from the inside far better than they could from the outside.
They may have been naive, but not evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625626</id>
	<title>Maybe they won't censor Chinese citizens</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1269616080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they are the world's knight in shining armor come to save the world from censorship and DRM and stop government from spying and stuff.</p><p>
Hey come on, it might happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they are the world 's knight in shining armor come to save the world from censorship and DRM and stop government from spying and stuff .
Hey come on , it might happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they are the world's knight in shining armor come to save the world from censorship and DRM and stop government from spying and stuff.
Hey come on, it might happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627382</id>
	<title>Re:Conflicted!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269622920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But Which is better? Bing or Google? There's only way to find out. Fiiiiigghhhhtttt!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But Which is better ?
Bing or Google ?
There 's only way to find out .
Fiiiiigghhhhtttt !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Which is better?
Bing or Google?
There's only way to find out.
Fiiiiigghhhhtttt!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625788</id>
	<title>Re:How good of them.</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1269616740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's\_law" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's\_law</a> [wikipedia.org]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin 's \ _law [ wikipedia.org ] ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's\_law [wikipedia.org] ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627658</id>
	<title>microsoft has nothing to steal</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1269623880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that says more that microsoft has nothing that China wants to steal than anything else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that says more that microsoft has nothing that China wants to steal than anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that says more that microsoft has nothing that China wants to steal than anything else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31628786</id>
	<title>Re:Torn</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1269627360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We are the people who say our government better not censor any part of out internet. <br>
Sovereignty is a moot point if you believe in the universality of human rights. We are telling them what they should do and the legitimacy to do so comes from the fact that we say the same to our own governments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are the people who say our government better not censor any part of out internet .
Sovereignty is a moot point if you believe in the universality of human rights .
We are telling them what they should do and the legitimacy to do so comes from the fact that we say the same to our own governments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are the people who say our government better not censor any part of out internet.
Sovereignty is a moot point if you believe in the universality of human rights.
We are telling them what they should do and the legitimacy to do so comes from the fact that we say the same to our own governments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31638318</id>
	<title>Re:Torn</title>
	<author>sydneyfong</author>
	<datestamp>1269691680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, yes. A democratically elected government that goes around the world killing people and committing torture... that is so much better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , yes .
A democratically elected government that goes around the world killing people and committing torture... that is so much better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, yes.
A democratically elected government that goes around the world killing people and committing torture... that is so much better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627126</id>
	<title>Re:Conflicted!</title>
	<author>Shompol</author>
	<datestamp>1269621780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do not believe that Bing's privacy policy is any better than Google's. The reason: they both have to follow <a href="http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/" title="epic.org" rel="nofollow">US Patriot Act</a> [epic.org]:keep the search data for a few months and serve your butt to govt upon request.<br>
As for business in China, Microsoft believes that China can execute all their dissidents overnight, it's their internal problem, MS could not care less. Obey the law - get paid. Need bricks and fuel for gas chambers -- no problem, we deliver! List of names and addresses of all the jews/dissidents? Here you are! Sorry, gotta obey the law, don't want to piss off the shareholders!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not believe that Bing 's privacy policy is any better than Google 's .
The reason : they both have to follow US Patriot Act [ epic.org ] : keep the search data for a few months and serve your butt to govt upon request .
As for business in China , Microsoft believes that China can execute all their dissidents overnight , it 's their internal problem , MS could not care less .
Obey the law - get paid .
Need bricks and fuel for gas chambers -- no problem , we deliver !
List of names and addresses of all the jews/dissidents ?
Here you are !
Sorry , got ta obey the law , do n't want to piss off the shareholders !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not believe that Bing's privacy policy is any better than Google's.
The reason: they both have to follow US Patriot Act [epic.org]:keep the search data for a few months and serve your butt to govt upon request.
As for business in China, Microsoft believes that China can execute all their dissidents overnight, it's their internal problem, MS could not care less.
Obey the law - get paid.
Need bricks and fuel for gas chambers -- no problem, we deliver!
List of names and addresses of all the jews/dissidents?
Here you are!
Sorry, gotta obey the law, don't want to piss off the shareholders!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246</id>
	<title>Torn</title>
	<author>tpstigers</author>
	<datestamp>1269614340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm kind of torn by this whole China/Google/Microsoft thing.  While I'm not a fan of the Chinese government, who are we to say what they should and shouldn't allow?  Would we want a Chinese company to come into our country and tell our government what to do?  While I've seen a great deal of discussion about human rights surrounding these stories, I've seen precious little about sovereignty.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm kind of torn by this whole China/Google/Microsoft thing .
While I 'm not a fan of the Chinese government , who are we to say what they should and should n't allow ?
Would we want a Chinese company to come into our country and tell our government what to do ?
While I 've seen a great deal of discussion about human rights surrounding these stories , I 've seen precious little about sovereignty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm kind of torn by this whole China/Google/Microsoft thing.
While I'm not a fan of the Chinese government, who are we to say what they should and shouldn't allow?
Would we want a Chinese company to come into our country and tell our government what to do?
While I've seen a great deal of discussion about human rights surrounding these stories, I've seen precious little about sovereignty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31628324</id>
	<title>High Speed Rail All The Way To Europe</title>
	<author>Max\_W</author>
	<datestamp>1269625740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China To Connect Its High Speed Rail All The Way To Europe</p><p><a href="http://www.inhabitat.com/2010/03/15/china-to-connect-its-high-speed-rail-all-the-way-to-europe/" title="inhabitat.com">http://www.inhabitat.com/2010/03/15/china-to-connect-its-high-speed-rail-all-the-way-to-europe/</a> [inhabitat.com]</p><p>It seems to me like a true global leadership. Not fighting with illiterate mountain tribes for years, or burning oil wells, but connecting people. Building trade, trust, and prosperity.</p><p>I want such a high speed rail in Eurasia. It would be very convenient to me. It is too expensive and scary to fly all the time.</p><p>What the h... we want more from China? They want to connect to us, do not they?</p><p>But shallow politicians still think in colonial terms: destabilize a land, grab its riches, and runaway with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China To Connect Its High Speed Rail All The Way To Europehttp : //www.inhabitat.com/2010/03/15/china-to-connect-its-high-speed-rail-all-the-way-to-europe/ [ inhabitat.com ] It seems to me like a true global leadership .
Not fighting with illiterate mountain tribes for years , or burning oil wells , but connecting people .
Building trade , trust , and prosperity.I want such a high speed rail in Eurasia .
It would be very convenient to me .
It is too expensive and scary to fly all the time.What the h... we want more from China ?
They want to connect to us , do not they ? But shallow politicians still think in colonial terms : destabilize a land , grab its riches , and runaway with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China To Connect Its High Speed Rail All The Way To Europehttp://www.inhabitat.com/2010/03/15/china-to-connect-its-high-speed-rail-all-the-way-to-europe/ [inhabitat.com]It seems to me like a true global leadership.
Not fighting with illiterate mountain tribes for years, or burning oil wells, but connecting people.
Building trade, trust, and prosperity.I want such a high speed rail in Eurasia.
It would be very convenient to me.
It is too expensive and scary to fly all the time.What the h... we want more from China?
They want to connect to us, do not they?But shallow politicians still think in colonial terms: destabilize a land, grab its riches, and runaway with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625436</id>
	<title>Re:The true motives</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1269615180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or MS say well we are censoring results for you now about those pirates i'me shure theres some zoning laws you can use to have their premises buldozed</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or MS say well we are censoring results for you now about those pirates i'me shure theres some zoning laws you can use to have their premises buldozed</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or MS say well we are censoring results for you now about those pirates i'me shure theres some zoning laws you can use to have their premises buldozed</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31633800</id>
	<title>Re:Torn</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1269604740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm kind of torn by this whole China/Google/Microsoft thing. While I'm not a fan of the Chinese government, who are we to say what they should and shouldn't allow? Would we want a Chinese company to come into our country and tell our government what to do? While I've seen a great deal of discussion about human rights surrounding these stories, I've seen precious little about sovereignty.</p></div><p>Their sovereignty is not infringed in any way - Having access to services provided by Google (or, indeed, any other company) is not a part of that concept.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm kind of torn by this whole China/Google/Microsoft thing .
While I 'm not a fan of the Chinese government , who are we to say what they should and should n't allow ?
Would we want a Chinese company to come into our country and tell our government what to do ?
While I 've seen a great deal of discussion about human rights surrounding these stories , I 've seen precious little about sovereignty.Their sovereignty is not infringed in any way - Having access to services provided by Google ( or , indeed , any other company ) is not a part of that concept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm kind of torn by this whole China/Google/Microsoft thing.
While I'm not a fan of the Chinese government, who are we to say what they should and shouldn't allow?
Would we want a Chinese company to come into our country and tell our government what to do?
While I've seen a great deal of discussion about human rights surrounding these stories, I've seen precious little about sovereignty.Their sovereignty is not infringed in any way - Having access to services provided by Google (or, indeed, any other company) is not a part of that concept.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31628032</id>
	<title>Re:Torn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269624960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should be afraid of any regime which strongly limits the data its citizens are able to receive.<br>In so doing, the government is far better able to make their citizens believe whatever they want, and so the country is far more prone to doing whatever the gov't wills.</p><p>This is scary because if the gov't desires war (whether military, economic, etc), then it will have it, with little or no dissent.</p><p>How can you expect to deal with a country whose gov't tells its citizens that *your* country's citizens are genetically inferior (e.g. this is what the Japanese believed during WWII), or when the gov't tells its citizens that *your* country's citizens are "out to get them". Neither of these polarizing viewpoints provides peace and prosperity. The lack of peace and prosperity affects citizens in "both" (really all) countries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should be afraid of any regime which strongly limits the data its citizens are able to receive.In so doing , the government is far better able to make their citizens believe whatever they want , and so the country is far more prone to doing whatever the gov't wills.This is scary because if the gov't desires war ( whether military , economic , etc ) , then it will have it , with little or no dissent.How can you expect to deal with a country whose gov't tells its citizens that * your * country 's citizens are genetically inferior ( e.g .
this is what the Japanese believed during WWII ) , or when the gov't tells its citizens that * your * country 's citizens are " out to get them " .
Neither of these polarizing viewpoints provides peace and prosperity .
The lack of peace and prosperity affects citizens in " both " ( really all ) countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should be afraid of any regime which strongly limits the data its citizens are able to receive.In so doing, the government is far better able to make their citizens believe whatever they want, and so the country is far more prone to doing whatever the gov't wills.This is scary because if the gov't desires war (whether military, economic, etc), then it will have it, with little or no dissent.How can you expect to deal with a country whose gov't tells its citizens that *your* country's citizens are genetically inferior (e.g.
this is what the Japanese believed during WWII), or when the gov't tells its citizens that *your* country's citizens are "out to get them".
Neither of these polarizing viewpoints provides peace and prosperity.
The lack of peace and prosperity affects citizens in "both" (really all) countries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626060</id>
	<title>Re:Torn</title>
	<author>trboyden</author>
	<datestamp>1269617700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sovereignty isn't a right. A country is only as sovereign as their political, economic, and military power enables them to be. If Google's actions puts a crack in the Great Wall, so be it. However, I don't think Google is bringing down China any time soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sovereignty is n't a right .
A country is only as sovereign as their political , economic , and military power enables them to be .
If Google 's actions puts a crack in the Great Wall , so be it .
However , I do n't think Google is bringing down China any time soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sovereignty isn't a right.
A country is only as sovereign as their political, economic, and military power enables them to be.
If Google's actions puts a crack in the Great Wall, so be it.
However, I don't think Google is bringing down China any time soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625610</id>
	<title>Re:Torn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269616020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>who are we to say what they should and shouldn't allow?</p> </div><p>The people, a collection of humans. Human rights go above any "rights" a government claims.

All other countries in the world have a say as well, since china signed the declaration of human rights, and we should hold them to that contract.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Would we want a Chinese company to come into our country and tell our government what to do?</p>  </div><p>Yes, very much, if they do so defending our human rights.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>While I've seen a great deal of discussion about human rights surrounding these stories, I've seen precious little about sovereignty.</p></div><p>Does sovereignty allow a country to violate any human right as it sees fit?
<br>
<br>
Human rights are basic "moral rights", and go above all contracts, politics and sovereignty as far as I'm concerned. Anyone defending them is "morally correct" almost automatically (as long as defending them does not violate them)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>who are we to say what they should and should n't allow ?
The people , a collection of humans .
Human rights go above any " rights " a government claims .
All other countries in the world have a say as well , since china signed the declaration of human rights , and we should hold them to that contract .
Would we want a Chinese company to come into our country and tell our government what to do ?
Yes , very much , if they do so defending our human rights.While I 've seen a great deal of discussion about human rights surrounding these stories , I 've seen precious little about sovereignty.Does sovereignty allow a country to violate any human right as it sees fit ?
Human rights are basic " moral rights " , and go above all contracts , politics and sovereignty as far as I 'm concerned .
Anyone defending them is " morally correct " almost automatically ( as long as defending them does not violate them )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who are we to say what they should and shouldn't allow?
The people, a collection of humans.
Human rights go above any "rights" a government claims.
All other countries in the world have a say as well, since china signed the declaration of human rights, and we should hold them to that contract.
Would we want a Chinese company to come into our country and tell our government what to do?
Yes, very much, if they do so defending our human rights.While I've seen a great deal of discussion about human rights surrounding these stories, I've seen precious little about sovereignty.Does sovereignty allow a country to violate any human right as it sees fit?
Human rights are basic "moral rights", and go above all contracts, politics and sovereignty as far as I'm concerned.
Anyone defending them is "morally correct" almost automatically (as long as defending them does not violate them)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626074</id>
	<title>Re:Conflicted!</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1269617700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Sorry but admiring Google for no longer censoring is like admiring someone for no longer beating their child.</p></div></blockquote><p>You don't admire someone who ceases to do something bad.</p><p>But you do encourage them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry but admiring Google for no longer censoring is like admiring someone for no longer beating their child.You do n't admire someone who ceases to do something bad.But you do encourage them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry but admiring Google for no longer censoring is like admiring someone for no longer beating their child.You don't admire someone who ceases to do something bad.But you do encourage them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31629582</id>
	<title>Don't be fooled</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269629880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's all just business. No added morality needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all just business .
No added morality needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all just business.
No added morality needed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627708</id>
	<title>Lonely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269624060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I'm very disappointed for them in particular. I would hope that larger companies would not put profit ahead of all else..."</p><p>Fat chance.  Morality has never been a problem for M$.  They'll do anything to make a buck.  It's been this way from the very beginning, and it's unlikely to ever change.</p><p>Not everything Google does is right, and they've had their share of naughty, but it seems far less than most other companies.  I applaud Google in this case for standing up for what is right, and it looks like they've approached it the right way, or as best they can - pulling out instead of violating laws.</p><p>I would hope other companies will follow suit and not assist in China's ongoing efforts to violate human freedoms.  If China wants to treat it's people poorly, they should be entirely responsible on their own, without the support of foreign companies.</p><p>I fear Google's going to be a little lonely out there, but despite the fact that they are not perfect, they have won additional respect from me and additional loyalty - as long as they continue trying to do the right thing in all aspects of their business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm very disappointed for them in particular .
I would hope that larger companies would not put profit ahead of all else... " Fat chance .
Morality has never been a problem for M $ .
They 'll do anything to make a buck .
It 's been this way from the very beginning , and it 's unlikely to ever change.Not everything Google does is right , and they 've had their share of naughty , but it seems far less than most other companies .
I applaud Google in this case for standing up for what is right , and it looks like they 've approached it the right way , or as best they can - pulling out instead of violating laws.I would hope other companies will follow suit and not assist in China 's ongoing efforts to violate human freedoms .
If China wants to treat it 's people poorly , they should be entirely responsible on their own , without the support of foreign companies.I fear Google 's going to be a little lonely out there , but despite the fact that they are not perfect , they have won additional respect from me and additional loyalty - as long as they continue trying to do the right thing in all aspects of their business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm very disappointed for them in particular.
I would hope that larger companies would not put profit ahead of all else..."Fat chance.
Morality has never been a problem for M$.
They'll do anything to make a buck.
It's been this way from the very beginning, and it's unlikely to ever change.Not everything Google does is right, and they've had their share of naughty, but it seems far less than most other companies.
I applaud Google in this case for standing up for what is right, and it looks like they've approached it the right way, or as best they can - pulling out instead of violating laws.I would hope other companies will follow suit and not assist in China's ongoing efforts to violate human freedoms.
If China wants to treat it's people poorly, they should be entirely responsible on their own, without the support of foreign companies.I fear Google's going to be a little lonely out there, but despite the fact that they are not perfect, they have won additional respect from me and additional loyalty - as long as they continue trying to do the right thing in all aspects of their business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625632</id>
	<title>Is Brin serious?</title>
	<author>cOldhandle</author>
	<datestamp>1269616140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>'I'm very disappointed for them in particular. I would hope that larger companies would not put profit ahead of all else. Generally, companies should pay attention to how and where their products are used.'</p><p>I find this absolutely hilarious coming from Brin, pretending Google is some sort of moral authority now that they've pulled out of China due to the recent incident, having sold out to the Chinese government for many years previously providing services customized according to the state to oppress its citizens and restrict their access to news and information!</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'I 'm very disappointed for them in particular .
I would hope that larger companies would not put profit ahead of all else .
Generally , companies should pay attention to how and where their products are used .
'I find this absolutely hilarious coming from Brin , pretending Google is some sort of moral authority now that they 've pulled out of China due to the recent incident , having sold out to the Chinese government for many years previously providing services customized according to the state to oppress its citizens and restrict their access to news and information !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'I'm very disappointed for them in particular.
I would hope that larger companies would not put profit ahead of all else.
Generally, companies should pay attention to how and where their products are used.
'I find this absolutely hilarious coming from Brin, pretending Google is some sort of moral authority now that they've pulled out of China due to the recent incident, having sold out to the Chinese government for many years previously providing services customized according to the state to oppress its citizens and restrict their access to news and information!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627904</id>
	<title>Re:Torn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269624600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod me troll if you must, but fact is that the PRC ~already~ is in our country telling us what we should or should not do via the small (?) army of lobbyists, tech companies, and financiers of our growing national debt. Never mind about human rights violations in China, what about the violations going on here at home?</p><p>Oh, silly me, market share excuses all, huh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod me troll if you must , but fact is that the PRC ~ already ~ is in our country telling us what we should or should not do via the small ( ?
) army of lobbyists , tech companies , and financiers of our growing national debt .
Never mind about human rights violations in China , what about the violations going on here at home ? Oh , silly me , market share excuses all , huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod me troll if you must, but fact is that the PRC ~already~ is in our country telling us what we should or should not do via the small (?
) army of lobbyists, tech companies, and financiers of our growing national debt.
Never mind about human rights violations in China, what about the violations going on here at home?Oh, silly me, market share excuses all, huh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625278</id>
	<title>So?</title>
	<author>Aphoxema</author>
	<datestamp>1269614520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see a problem here; proprietary software is for proprietary minds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see a problem here ; proprietary software is for proprietary minds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see a problem here; proprietary software is for proprietary minds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626926</id>
	<title>Do not tell anybody</title>
	<author>donguz</author>
	<datestamp>1269620700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft is undercover government agent. They working on Blue Screen of Death attack.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is undercover government agent .
They working on Blue Screen of Death attack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is undercover government agent.
They working on Blue Screen of Death attack.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625220</id>
	<title>How good of them.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269614220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's always nice to see companies <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM#Business\_relations\_with\_Nazi\_Germany" title="wikipedia.org">following local laws.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's always nice to see companies following local laws .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's always nice to see companies following local laws.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625542</id>
	<title>It does not make it evil</title>
	<author>greengarden</author>
	<datestamp>1269615780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft staying in China or not will make no difference to the political situation in China. Furthermore, I wish companies would stay away from politics altogether: no contributions to parties, no statements about how good or bad is a local government. Follow the local laws, and leave politics to the country's citizens.<br>
<br>
Just because Microsoft writes bad software and it is a monopoly, it does not mean that all it does is evil. I think that Google's move was the result of many issues that just make doing business there too hard. This includes tarnishing the Google brand by exposing itself to criticism of 'collaborating' with a totalitarian regime, but the gmail hacking was also a factor.
<br> <br>
Paul Casal<br>
<a href="http://www.jbilling.com/" title="jbilling.com" rel="nofollow">jBilling</a> [jbilling.com] Open Source Billing</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft staying in China or not will make no difference to the political situation in China .
Furthermore , I wish companies would stay away from politics altogether : no contributions to parties , no statements about how good or bad is a local government .
Follow the local laws , and leave politics to the country 's citizens .
Just because Microsoft writes bad software and it is a monopoly , it does not mean that all it does is evil .
I think that Google 's move was the result of many issues that just make doing business there too hard .
This includes tarnishing the Google brand by exposing itself to criticism of 'collaborating ' with a totalitarian regime , but the gmail hacking was also a factor .
Paul Casal jBilling [ jbilling.com ] Open Source Billing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft staying in China or not will make no difference to the political situation in China.
Furthermore, I wish companies would stay away from politics altogether: no contributions to parties, no statements about how good or bad is a local government.
Follow the local laws, and leave politics to the country's citizens.
Just because Microsoft writes bad software and it is a monopoly, it does not mean that all it does is evil.
I think that Google's move was the result of many issues that just make doing business there too hard.
This includes tarnishing the Google brand by exposing itself to criticism of 'collaborating' with a totalitarian regime, but the gmail hacking was also a factor.
Paul Casal
jBilling [jbilling.com] Open Source Billing</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625478</id>
	<title>Monopolism over anthropology</title>
	<author>bl8n8r</author>
	<datestamp>1269615420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As soon as google is out, bing will move in.  Bill Gates wants to be seen as some kind of third world savior but in the end, he's just another capitalist with money to burn.  Nevermind the human rights violations who Google, Dell and others are standing up against.  To microsoft, it's *only* about money and always has been and I'm not surprised.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as google is out , bing will move in .
Bill Gates wants to be seen as some kind of third world savior but in the end , he 's just another capitalist with money to burn .
Nevermind the human rights violations who Google , Dell and others are standing up against .
To microsoft , it 's * only * about money and always has been and I 'm not surprised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as google is out, bing will move in.
Bill Gates wants to be seen as some kind of third world savior but in the end, he's just another capitalist with money to burn.
Nevermind the human rights violations who Google, Dell and others are standing up against.
To microsoft, it's *only* about money and always has been and I'm not surprised.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625224</id>
	<title>We're Staying with my Mom, Says Cmdr Taco</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269614220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good thing my "woman" is a "real doll"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good thing my " woman " is a " real doll "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good thing my "woman" is a "real doll"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625654</id>
	<title>Re:Conflicted!</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1269616200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Move to China, then use Google.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>(If you hear someone knocking, don't open.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Move to China , then use Google .
: P ( If you hear someone knocking , do n't open .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Move to China, then use Google.
:P(If you hear someone knocking, don't open.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625210</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31628048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31628544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31709684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31641048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31628032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31643324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31628534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31631724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31630040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31633768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31633800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31628786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31629046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31628998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31633070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31638318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31628670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31628304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_26_1256216_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1256216.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1256216.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1256216.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31633768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1256216.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1256216.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625636
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31628998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1256216.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1256216.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31629046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31628670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31638318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31633070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31628032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31628304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31633800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31628048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31628786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31630040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1256216.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1256216.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1256216.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1256216.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1256216.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626302
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625630
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31631724
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626600
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626398
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31627314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31628534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31628544
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31709684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31641048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626074
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1256216.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31643324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625772
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1256216.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1256216.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1256216.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31626736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1256216.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31629566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_26_1256216.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_26_1256216.31625686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
