<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_30_238233</id>
	<title>James Lovelock Suggests Suspending Democracy To Save the World</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269947580000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:mosb1000@mac.com" rel="nofollow">mosb1000</a> writes <i>"Climate scientist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James\_Lovelock">James Lovelock</a> claims it may be <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock-climate-change">necessary to put democracy on hold</a> to prevent a global climate catastrophe.  He goes on to say that the best remedies may be adaptation techniques such as building sea defenses."</i>

Lovelock is famously the creator of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia\_hypothesis">Gaia hypothesis</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>mosb1000 writes " Climate scientist James Lovelock claims it may be necessary to put democracy on hold to prevent a global climate catastrophe .
He goes on to say that the best remedies may be adaptation techniques such as building sea defenses .
" Lovelock is famously the creator of the Gaia hypothesis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mosb1000 writes "Climate scientist James Lovelock claims it may be necessary to put democracy on hold to prevent a global climate catastrophe.
He goes on to say that the best remedies may be adaptation techniques such as building sea defenses.
"

Lovelock is famously the creator of the Gaia hypothesis.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679490</id>
	<title>Electorate afraid to lose their "Lifestyle"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone I know whose against global warming - and I'm not talking about folks who are legitimate skeptics who base their opinions on science. I'm talking about Joe and Jane (usually AM Radio/Fox News consumers) who want the whole Global Warming idea to go away because they firmly believe that global Warming is a myth created to:</p><ul> <li>Destroy capitalism by the left</li><li>A backhanded way to raise taxes for the left to spend</li><li>Wealth redistribution: from rich countries to poor ones (there is some truth to that one)</li></ul><p>They are afraid of losing their lifestyle: unbridled consumption. The stereotype? Big SUV with "McCain/Palin" bumper stickers and sometimes faded Bush 04 stickers. They want all their money and explaining that the reduction in Greenhouse gases will also clean up the air just goes over their head.</p><p>My favorite cartoon of all time shows an climatologist screaming "What if we clean up the Earth for nothing!" - or something like that.</p><p>It boils down to people wanting to benefit from pollution (economically) without having to pay the consequences. Unfortunately, they don't see the damage to their health from a dirty environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone I know whose against global warming - and I 'm not talking about folks who are legitimate skeptics who base their opinions on science .
I 'm talking about Joe and Jane ( usually AM Radio/Fox News consumers ) who want the whole Global Warming idea to go away because they firmly believe that global Warming is a myth created to : Destroy capitalism by the leftA backhanded way to raise taxes for the left to spendWealth redistribution : from rich countries to poor ones ( there is some truth to that one ) They are afraid of losing their lifestyle : unbridled consumption .
The stereotype ?
Big SUV with " McCain/Palin " bumper stickers and sometimes faded Bush 04 stickers .
They want all their money and explaining that the reduction in Greenhouse gases will also clean up the air just goes over their head.My favorite cartoon of all time shows an climatologist screaming " What if we clean up the Earth for nothing !
" - or something like that.It boils down to people wanting to benefit from pollution ( economically ) without having to pay the consequences .
Unfortunately , they do n't see the damage to their health from a dirty environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone I know whose against global warming - and I'm not talking about folks who are legitimate skeptics who base their opinions on science.
I'm talking about Joe and Jane (usually AM Radio/Fox News consumers) who want the whole Global Warming idea to go away because they firmly believe that global Warming is a myth created to: Destroy capitalism by the leftA backhanded way to raise taxes for the left to spendWealth redistribution: from rich countries to poor ones (there is some truth to that one)They are afraid of losing their lifestyle: unbridled consumption.
The stereotype?
Big SUV with "McCain/Palin" bumper stickers and sometimes faded Bush 04 stickers.
They want all their money and explaining that the reduction in Greenhouse gases will also clean up the air just goes over their head.My favorite cartoon of all time shows an climatologist screaming "What if we clean up the Earth for nothing!
" - or something like that.It boils down to people wanting to benefit from pollution (economically) without having to pay the consequences.
Unfortunately, they don't see the damage to their health from a dirty environment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680938</id>
	<title>Carbon footprint is not a malarky.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1269958620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is an objective measure about how much an individual is contributing to the release of CO2 in the atmosphere, and CO2 is proven to cause green house effect, which leads to global warming and global climate change.</p><p>Deriding people that can't articulate solutions to the current ecological debacle we are facing will not make the problem go away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is an objective measure about how much an individual is contributing to the release of CO2 in the atmosphere , and CO2 is proven to cause green house effect , which leads to global warming and global climate change.Deriding people that ca n't articulate solutions to the current ecological debacle we are facing will not make the problem go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is an objective measure about how much an individual is contributing to the release of CO2 in the atmosphere, and CO2 is proven to cause green house effect, which leads to global warming and global climate change.Deriding people that can't articulate solutions to the current ecological debacle we are facing will not make the problem go away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680512</id>
	<title>Re:I knew it</title>
	<author>Theswager</author>
	<datestamp>1269956400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the trick is to be one of those politicians or scientists</htmltext>
<tokenext>the trick is to be one of those politicians or scientists</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the trick is to be one of those politicians or scientists</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682162</id>
	<title>We need more leaders...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269965280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am so glad that someone is willing to step up and run the world for the rest us...  thanks god for arrogance...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am so glad that someone is willing to step up and run the world for the rest us... thanks god for arrogance.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am so glad that someone is willing to step up and run the world for the rest us...  thanks god for arrogance...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681364</id>
	<title>Re:Let's go to the videotape</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269960660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What? When did democracy get suspended because of war? And how is that taken out of context? He said "It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while." Huh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
When did democracy get suspended because of war ?
And how is that taken out of context ?
He said " It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while .
" Huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
When did democracy get suspended because of war?
And how is that taken out of context?
He said "It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.
" Huh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679446</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>Dragoniz3r</author>
	<datestamp>1269951840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More accurately, something more closely resembling "common sense"</htmltext>
<tokenext>More accurately , something more closely resembling " common sense "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More accurately, something more closely resembling "common sense"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685392</id>
	<title>Re:Let's go to the videotape</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270037580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lovelock also talks a lot of sense in this BBC interview: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid\_8594000/8594561.stm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lovelock also talks a lot of sense in this BBC interview : http : //news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid \ _8594000/8594561.stm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lovelock also talks a lot of sense in this BBC interview: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid\_8594000/8594561.stm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682096</id>
	<title>Re:Let's go to the videotape</title>
	<author>FoolishOwl</author>
	<datestamp>1269964920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, a closer reading of his interview makes it clear that:</p><ol> <li>He's not opposed to democracy in general, but only when the majority doesn't agree with him;</li><li>He believes science and democracy are incompatible.</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , a closer reading of his interview makes it clear that : He 's not opposed to democracy in general , but only when the majority does n't agree with him ; He believes science and democracy are incompatible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, a closer reading of his interview makes it clear that: He's not opposed to democracy in general, but only when the majority doesn't agree with him;He believes science and democracy are incompatible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680618</id>
	<title>You want to save the world?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269956940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is The Rich and those who have power and do their business behind<br>closed doors. Have an open and transparent government and control The Rich and<br>if that's not possible kill them. It's unfortunate that the masses don't understand<br>how truly powerful they are as a collective. You can boycott a lot of goods and<br>services and you can stop serving The Rich. And those who serve The Rich for a large<br>salary can be shunned. Yes it's harsh but our world is being destroyed by the<br>short-sighted Rich.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is The Rich and those who have power and do their business behindclosed doors .
Have an open and transparent government and control The Rich andif that 's not possible kill them .
It 's unfortunate that the masses do n't understandhow truly powerful they are as a collective .
You can boycott a lot of goods andservices and you can stop serving The Rich .
And those who serve The Rich for a largesalary can be shunned .
Yes it 's harsh but our world is being destroyed by theshort-sighted Rich .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is The Rich and those who have power and do their business behindclosed doors.
Have an open and transparent government and control The Rich andif that's not possible kill them.
It's unfortunate that the masses don't understandhow truly powerful they are as a collective.
You can boycott a lot of goods andservices and you can stop serving The Rich.
And those who serve The Rich for a largesalary can be shunned.
Yes it's harsh but our world is being destroyed by theshort-sighted Rich.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682842</id>
	<title>Lovelock is too stupid to survive</title>
	<author>Russ Nelson</author>
	<datestamp>1269970140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lovelock is too stupid to survive.  If you suspend democracy, how do you know that the people who are then running things will 1) agree that climate change is real, 2) agree that man is causing climate change, 3) agree that man should take action to stop the climate from changing, 4) agree to do something, 5) agree to do something that might work, or 6) agree to do something that actually WILL work (and just what that might be, I don't see anybody seriously proposing, other than to kill most people and go back to being hunter-gatherers).</p><p>So in exchange for all that uncertainty, Lovelock wants to give up democracy?  Just kill the moron now before he says something even MORE stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lovelock is too stupid to survive .
If you suspend democracy , how do you know that the people who are then running things will 1 ) agree that climate change is real , 2 ) agree that man is causing climate change , 3 ) agree that man should take action to stop the climate from changing , 4 ) agree to do something , 5 ) agree to do something that might work , or 6 ) agree to do something that actually WILL work ( and just what that might be , I do n't see anybody seriously proposing , other than to kill most people and go back to being hunter-gatherers ) .So in exchange for all that uncertainty , Lovelock wants to give up democracy ?
Just kill the moron now before he says something even MORE stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lovelock is too stupid to survive.
If you suspend democracy, how do you know that the people who are then running things will 1) agree that climate change is real, 2) agree that man is causing climate change, 3) agree that man should take action to stop the climate from changing, 4) agree to do something, 5) agree to do something that might work, or 6) agree to do something that actually WILL work (and just what that might be, I don't see anybody seriously proposing, other than to kill most people and go back to being hunter-gatherers).So in exchange for all that uncertainty, Lovelock wants to give up democracy?
Just kill the moron now before he says something even MORE stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681754</id>
	<title>Re:LOL</title>
	<author>Xyrus</author>
	<datestamp>1269962820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think what he was referring to is related to is the rather infamous quote: "The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter."</p><p>Specifically, the problem he is referring to is that democracy is not a good way to enact actions based on unpopular scientific findings. For example, look at tobacco, acid rain, vehicle safety, ozone depletion, or any other issue that would directly impact moneyed interest or people's habits. In almost every case adequate warnings, regulations, and/or legislation to years or decades longer to implement than it would/should have. Why? Mainly selfishness, from the end consumer up to the corporate conglomerates. We want it all and we want it now and $DIETY and fuck everything else.</p><p>In these cases you had a body of scientific evidence on one side screaming that bad shit is happening or is going to happen and on the other side you have corporate/consumer America. It's not even a contest. Most big companies spend more in a year on advertising and PR ALONE than any set of grants doled out to researchers COMBINED. It doesn't matter how good a case the scientists make. They don't have a PR machine. They have their research and that just doesn't hold a candle to the mind-numbing media blitz any big corporate interests can put on to the masses who already lack critical analysis skills.</p><p>A danger of democracy is when a lies are voted as truth, when fiction trumps fact, and when belief deposes reason. Unpopular scientific research has faced this on multiple occasions, and still faces it today.</p><p>~X~</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think what he was referring to is related to is the rather infamous quote : " The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter .
" Specifically , the problem he is referring to is that democracy is not a good way to enact actions based on unpopular scientific findings .
For example , look at tobacco , acid rain , vehicle safety , ozone depletion , or any other issue that would directly impact moneyed interest or people 's habits .
In almost every case adequate warnings , regulations , and/or legislation to years or decades longer to implement than it would/should have .
Why ? Mainly selfishness , from the end consumer up to the corporate conglomerates .
We want it all and we want it now and $ DIETY and fuck everything else.In these cases you had a body of scientific evidence on one side screaming that bad shit is happening or is going to happen and on the other side you have corporate/consumer America .
It 's not even a contest .
Most big companies spend more in a year on advertising and PR ALONE than any set of grants doled out to researchers COMBINED .
It does n't matter how good a case the scientists make .
They do n't have a PR machine .
They have their research and that just does n't hold a candle to the mind-numbing media blitz any big corporate interests can put on to the masses who already lack critical analysis skills.A danger of democracy is when a lies are voted as truth , when fiction trumps fact , and when belief deposes reason .
Unpopular scientific research has faced this on multiple occasions , and still faces it today. ~ X ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think what he was referring to is related to is the rather infamous quote: "The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter.
"Specifically, the problem he is referring to is that democracy is not a good way to enact actions based on unpopular scientific findings.
For example, look at tobacco, acid rain, vehicle safety, ozone depletion, or any other issue that would directly impact moneyed interest or people's habits.
In almost every case adequate warnings, regulations, and/or legislation to years or decades longer to implement than it would/should have.
Why? Mainly selfishness, from the end consumer up to the corporate conglomerates.
We want it all and we want it now and $DIETY and fuck everything else.In these cases you had a body of scientific evidence on one side screaming that bad shit is happening or is going to happen and on the other side you have corporate/consumer America.
It's not even a contest.
Most big companies spend more in a year on advertising and PR ALONE than any set of grants doled out to researchers COMBINED.
It doesn't matter how good a case the scientists make.
They don't have a PR machine.
They have their research and that just doesn't hold a candle to the mind-numbing media blitz any big corporate interests can put on to the masses who already lack critical analysis skills.A danger of democracy is when a lies are voted as truth, when fiction trumps fact, and when belief deposes reason.
Unpopular scientific research has faced this on multiple occasions, and still faces it today.~X~
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31686568</id>
	<title>Re:Crackpot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270045800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize that nuclear power is the only real alternative to fossil fuels we have? Renewable resources can't produce anywhere near the amount of energy we require. If you're worried about fallout, remember that Chernobyl was badly designed and was undergoing a badly run, dangerous experiment by a badly trained crew; Three Mile Island, on the other hand, had very low level effects - and modern designs are even safer than that(not to mention operating procedures have improved as a direct result). Unless you're talking about replacing Soviet-era Eastern Bloc plants, antinuclear activism is just one big case of Did Not Do The Research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that nuclear power is the only real alternative to fossil fuels we have ?
Renewable resources ca n't produce anywhere near the amount of energy we require .
If you 're worried about fallout , remember that Chernobyl was badly designed and was undergoing a badly run , dangerous experiment by a badly trained crew ; Three Mile Island , on the other hand , had very low level effects - and modern designs are even safer than that ( not to mention operating procedures have improved as a direct result ) .
Unless you 're talking about replacing Soviet-era Eastern Bloc plants , antinuclear activism is just one big case of Did Not Do The Research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that nuclear power is the only real alternative to fossil fuels we have?
Renewable resources can't produce anywhere near the amount of energy we require.
If you're worried about fallout, remember that Chernobyl was badly designed and was undergoing a badly run, dangerous experiment by a badly trained crew; Three Mile Island, on the other hand, had very low level effects - and modern designs are even safer than that(not to mention operating procedures have improved as a direct result).
Unless you're talking about replacing Soviet-era Eastern Bloc plants, antinuclear activism is just one big case of Did Not Do The Research.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31683572</id>
	<title>How about improving democracy?</title>
	<author>LongearedBat</author>
	<datestamp>1269976920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm thinking that we're currently not democratic enough. Pretty much everyone I speak to agrees that climate change is a problem, but it seems that everyone feels powerless.</p><p>How about an alternative to Modern Democracy?  An alternative that could be better because it: reduces room for corruption, allows domain experts to make decisions, and actually considers the will of the people.</p><p>&quot;Modern Democracy&quot; the world over is really a two
party republic system. You tend to have:<br>
- The main party in power<br>
- The main party in opposition<br>
- The minor parties who support one of the two main parties<br>
In Australia at least, the power party's task is to propose legislation, and the
opposition party's job is to challenge proposed legislation.  That allows for only one or two views, and the people have little or no
say.  The party can pressure an honest minister into doing what he knows is not right and it's easy for business to figure out which dishonest minister to bribe.</p><p> <b>My thoughts:</b> </p><p>1.
All parties that get over some smallish threshold are in power.
Parties cannot pass their votes on to other parties.<br>
(eg. All parties that won 5+\% of the peoples&rsquo; votes get to have a say and a vote.)</p><p>2.
Replace departments with councils (functionally different).<br>
(eg. Council for Education, Council for Environment, etc.)</p><p>3. Councils run comittees.
The creation of comittees should be fluid.
So you might have smaller temporary specialist comittees for smaller specialised decisions.</p><p>4.
Comittees make decisions by voting from all parties in power.
Each party&rsquo;s voting representation is based on the party&rsquo;s popular vote percentage.<br>
(eg.  So if a party got 14\% of the people&rsquo;s support, that party's vote is
worth 14\%.)<br>I guess the parties that scored below the threshold could be massed into a single group somehow.</p><p>5.
Committee representatives should be <b>domain experts</b>, rather than professional politicians.
And drop ministers.<br>
(It is not realistic to expect someone who makes the final decisions (ie. a minister)
to be an expert in everything in his portfolio, especially when his primary job is to play politics.)</p><p>6.
People should be able to vote for different parties for different councils.<br>
(eg.  I might vote Green for the Council of Environment, but I might vote Blue for the Council
of Economics/Finance, because I might disagree with the reddish economic leanings of the Green party)</p><p>7. As
voting technology in a country improves, such a system could become fluid and spontaneous.
Allowing people to change their support whenever, would make general elections redundant.  Also, people could raise their own concerns
and suggest new solutions to councils, that comittees could consider.</p><p>8.
Allow multiple options.  Having only Yes/No votes is not sufficient when there are several viable options.
The real world is not binary.</p><p> <b>Consequences:</b> </p><p>1. It
feels pointless to vote for a party, when one only agrees with some of the policies.
Voting with greater granularity would give one the feeling that one is voting
for what one actually believes in.</p><p>2. With
Modern Democracy, a vote going to a losing party, in particular a minor party, is effectively a lost vote.  But if
your chosen party still has a voice, then your opinion is still heard.</p><p>3. Because
peoples own concerns and suggestions can be heard and possibly even considered, people could feel like they&rsquo;re
actively taking part.</p><p>4. Because
of consequences 1-3, people might take more interest, and voting becomes more meaningful.
Participation, including self education about current topics, may increase a fair bit.</p><p>5.
Because it's unlikely any party can win an election and become powerful enough to call the shots,
there will be less incentive to "fund" a party.  In particular if voting is fluid.</p><p>6.
Better decisions coming from people in the know, biased by the opinions of the people,
should come pretty close to sensi</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm thinking that we 're currently not democratic enough .
Pretty much everyone I speak to agrees that climate change is a problem , but it seems that everyone feels powerless.How about an alternative to Modern Democracy ?
An alternative that could be better because it : reduces room for corruption , allows domain experts to make decisions , and actually considers the will of the people .
" Modern Democracy " the world over is really a two party republic system .
You tend to have : - The main party in power - The main party in opposition - The minor parties who support one of the two main parties In Australia at least , the power party 's task is to propose legislation , and the opposition party 's job is to challenge proposed legislation .
That allows for only one or two views , and the people have little or no say .
The party can pressure an honest minister into doing what he knows is not right and it 's easy for business to figure out which dishonest minister to bribe .
My thoughts : 1 .
All parties that get over some smallish threshold are in power .
Parties can not pass their votes on to other parties .
( eg. All parties that won 5 + \ % of the peoples    votes get to have a say and a vote. ) 2 .
Replace departments with councils ( functionally different ) .
( eg. Council for Education , Council for Environment , etc. ) 3 .
Councils run comittees .
The creation of comittees should be fluid .
So you might have smaller temporary specialist comittees for smaller specialised decisions.4 .
Comittees make decisions by voting from all parties in power .
Each party    s voting representation is based on the party    s popular vote percentage .
( eg. So if a party got 14 \ % of the people    s support , that party 's vote is worth 14 \ % .
) I guess the parties that scored below the threshold could be massed into a single group somehow.5 .
Committee representatives should be domain experts , rather than professional politicians .
And drop ministers .
( It is not realistic to expect someone who makes the final decisions ( ie .
a minister ) to be an expert in everything in his portfolio , especially when his primary job is to play politics. ) 6 .
People should be able to vote for different parties for different councils .
( eg. I might vote Green for the Council of Environment , but I might vote Blue for the Council of Economics/Finance , because I might disagree with the reddish economic leanings of the Green party ) 7 .
As voting technology in a country improves , such a system could become fluid and spontaneous .
Allowing people to change their support whenever , would make general elections redundant .
Also , people could raise their own concerns and suggest new solutions to councils , that comittees could consider.8 .
Allow multiple options .
Having only Yes/No votes is not sufficient when there are several viable options .
The real world is not binary .
Consequences : 1 .
It feels pointless to vote for a party , when one only agrees with some of the policies .
Voting with greater granularity would give one the feeling that one is voting for what one actually believes in.2 .
With Modern Democracy , a vote going to a losing party , in particular a minor party , is effectively a lost vote .
But if your chosen party still has a voice , then your opinion is still heard.3 .
Because peoples own concerns and suggestions can be heard and possibly even considered , people could feel like they    re actively taking part.4 .
Because of consequences 1-3 , people might take more interest , and voting becomes more meaningful .
Participation , including self education about current topics , may increase a fair bit.5 .
Because it 's unlikely any party can win an election and become powerful enough to call the shots , there will be less incentive to " fund " a party .
In particular if voting is fluid.6 .
Better decisions coming from people in the know , biased by the opinions of the people , should come pretty close to sensi</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm thinking that we're currently not democratic enough.
Pretty much everyone I speak to agrees that climate change is a problem, but it seems that everyone feels powerless.How about an alternative to Modern Democracy?
An alternative that could be better because it: reduces room for corruption, allows domain experts to make decisions, and actually considers the will of the people.
"Modern Democracy" the world over is really a two
party republic system.
You tend to have:
- The main party in power
- The main party in opposition
- The minor parties who support one of the two main parties
In Australia at least, the power party's task is to propose legislation, and the
opposition party's job is to challenge proposed legislation.
That allows for only one or two views, and the people have little or no
say.
The party can pressure an honest minister into doing what he knows is not right and it's easy for business to figure out which dishonest minister to bribe.
My thoughts: 1.
All parties that get over some smallish threshold are in power.
Parties cannot pass their votes on to other parties.
(eg. All parties that won 5+\% of the peoples’ votes get to have a say and a vote.)2.
Replace departments with councils (functionally different).
(eg. Council for Education, Council for Environment, etc.)3.
Councils run comittees.
The creation of comittees should be fluid.
So you might have smaller temporary specialist comittees for smaller specialised decisions.4.
Comittees make decisions by voting from all parties in power.
Each party’s voting representation is based on the party’s popular vote percentage.
(eg.  So if a party got 14\% of the people’s support, that party's vote is
worth 14\%.
)I guess the parties that scored below the threshold could be massed into a single group somehow.5.
Committee representatives should be domain experts, rather than professional politicians.
And drop ministers.
(It is not realistic to expect someone who makes the final decisions (ie.
a minister)
to be an expert in everything in his portfolio, especially when his primary job is to play politics.)6.
People should be able to vote for different parties for different councils.
(eg.  I might vote Green for the Council of Environment, but I might vote Blue for the Council
of Economics/Finance, because I might disagree with the reddish economic leanings of the Green party)7.
As
voting technology in a country improves, such a system could become fluid and spontaneous.
Allowing people to change their support whenever, would make general elections redundant.
Also, people could raise their own concerns
and suggest new solutions to councils, that comittees could consider.8.
Allow multiple options.
Having only Yes/No votes is not sufficient when there are several viable options.
The real world is not binary.
Consequences: 1.
It
feels pointless to vote for a party, when one only agrees with some of the policies.
Voting with greater granularity would give one the feeling that one is voting
for what one actually believes in.2.
With
Modern Democracy, a vote going to a losing party, in particular a minor party, is effectively a lost vote.
But if
your chosen party still has a voice, then your opinion is still heard.3.
Because
peoples own concerns and suggestions can be heard and possibly even considered, people could feel like they’re
actively taking part.4.
Because
of consequences 1-3, people might take more interest, and voting becomes more meaningful.
Participation, including self education about current topics, may increase a fair bit.5.
Because it's unlikely any party can win an election and become powerful enough to call the shots,
there will be less incentive to "fund" a party.
In particular if voting is fluid.6.
Better decisions coming from people in the know, biased by the opinions of the people,
should come pretty close to sensi</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682538</id>
	<title>Menwhile in the real word.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269967500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes people and governments will just allow themselves to be taken over.  When An alien space ship drops off GORT.<br>Maybe by force.  Ask Bush II how that worked out.<br>A great philosophic argument period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes people and governments will just allow themselves to be taken over .
When An alien space ship drops off GORT.Maybe by force .
Ask Bush II how that worked out.A great philosophic argument period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes people and governments will just allow themselves to be taken over.
When An alien space ship drops off GORT.Maybe by force.
Ask Bush II how that worked out.A great philosophic argument period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31683324</id>
	<title>really? more of this?</title>
	<author>aclevername</author>
	<datestamp>1269974280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it seems people forget about every single "end of the world" scenario as soon as the next one is thrown at them. any of you remember the next ice age, y2k, nostradomus prediction every single year, oh yea and 2012 is just around the corner. and since california is now at the bottom of the ocean they wont be here to help... what brings us as a people to believe these things?</htmltext>
<tokenext>it seems people forget about every single " end of the world " scenario as soon as the next one is thrown at them .
any of you remember the next ice age , y2k , nostradomus prediction every single year , oh yea and 2012 is just around the corner .
and since california is now at the bottom of the ocean they wont be here to help... what brings us as a people to believe these things ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it seems people forget about every single "end of the world" scenario as soon as the next one is thrown at them.
any of you remember the next ice age, y2k, nostradomus prediction every single year, oh yea and 2012 is just around the corner.
and since california is now at the bottom of the ocean they wont be here to help... what brings us as a people to believe these things?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31683310</id>
	<title>Re:Which</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269974100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Goes to show exactly why <b>all</b> nut-jobs are DANGEROUS PEOPLE.</p></div><p>There, I fixed it for you. The climate change nut jobs are just as dangerous as the there-is-no-climate-change nut jobs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Goes to show exactly why all nut-jobs are DANGEROUS PEOPLE.There , I fixed it for you .
The climate change nut jobs are just as dangerous as the there-is-no-climate-change nut jobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goes to show exactly why all nut-jobs are DANGEROUS PEOPLE.There, I fixed it for you.
The climate change nut jobs are just as dangerous as the there-is-no-climate-change nut jobs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680086</id>
	<title>Re:I knew it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269954720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Litres? Petrol? What in the hell are you talking about? SPEAK ENGLISH!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Litres ?
Petrol ? What in the hell are you talking about ?
SPEAK ENGLISH ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Litres?
Petrol? What in the hell are you talking about?
SPEAK ENGLISH!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31683482</id>
	<title>He's probably right...</title>
	<author>mark-t</author>
	<datestamp>1269975960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... in that suspending democracy, assuming it were achievable (which it isn't), would likely be our best chance at not screwing this planet over.
</p><p>
That said, since what is probably this planet's best chance at being saved doesn't have even a hope in hell of actually happening, we're hooped.   The planet is going down the toilet and no matter what happens, there will never be a significant enough number of people that care about it to effect any \_real\_ change until it is several generations too late to do anything about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... in that suspending democracy , assuming it were achievable ( which it is n't ) , would likely be our best chance at not screwing this planet over .
That said , since what is probably this planet 's best chance at being saved does n't have even a hope in hell of actually happening , we 're hooped .
The planet is going down the toilet and no matter what happens , there will never be a significant enough number of people that care about it to effect any \ _real \ _ change until it is several generations too late to do anything about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... in that suspending democracy, assuming it were achievable (which it isn't), would likely be our best chance at not screwing this planet over.
That said, since what is probably this planet's best chance at being saved doesn't have even a hope in hell of actually happening, we're hooped.
The planet is going down the toilet and no matter what happens, there will never be a significant enough number of people that care about it to effect any \_real\_ change until it is several generations too late to do anything about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681158</id>
	<title>Re:Gaea</title>
	<author>JackDW</author>
	<datestamp>1269959760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know, Gaia "theory" is a major theme in "Avatar"... along with all that fascist propaganda about how humans are evil, civilisation is a bad thing, and we should all go back to living in the trees...
</p><p>As non-falsifiable "theories" go, I'd say it's been quite influential. The intelligent design guys *wish* their non-falsifiable "theory" was as successful as Gaia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know , Gaia " theory " is a major theme in " Avatar " ... along with all that fascist propaganda about how humans are evil , civilisation is a bad thing , and we should all go back to living in the trees.. . As non-falsifiable " theories " go , I 'd say it 's been quite influential .
The intelligent design guys * wish * their non-falsifiable " theory " was as successful as Gaia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know, Gaia "theory" is a major theme in "Avatar"... along with all that fascist propaganda about how humans are evil, civilisation is a bad thing, and we should all go back to living in the trees...
As non-falsifiable "theories" go, I'd say it's been quite influential.
The intelligent design guys *wish* their non-falsifiable "theory" was as successful as Gaia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31688094</id>
	<title>Re:Let's go to the videotape</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270051800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Except that democracy wasn't put on hold in the US for any war.  In 1864, the US had a Presidential election as usual, and worked hard to make sure soldiers could vote.  The main issue of the election was whether to continue the war or recognize the secession of the Confederate states.  If that was subject to a vote of the people, I can't imagine what crisis would suspend democracy in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that democracy was n't put on hold in the US for any war .
In 1864 , the US had a Presidential election as usual , and worked hard to make sure soldiers could vote .
The main issue of the election was whether to continue the war or recognize the secession of the Confederate states .
If that was subject to a vote of the people , I ca n't imagine what crisis would suspend democracy in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Except that democracy wasn't put on hold in the US for any war.
In 1864, the US had a Presidential election as usual, and worked hard to make sure soldiers could vote.
The main issue of the election was whether to continue the war or recognize the secession of the Confederate states.
If that was subject to a vote of the people, I can't imagine what crisis would suspend democracy in the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681018</id>
	<title>Re:Problem is world democracy</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1269959040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with that approach is that most of the G8 don't want an agreement either.  As much as they all gave lip service to it in Copenhagen.....and sure, some of the representatives do want it, I can accept that Obama was sincere, but even he has no mechanism for enforcing CO2 cuts in his country.  So until the G8 want to cut CO2, it's not going to happen.<br> <br>
Personally I think the solution is to step up the search for alternate energy technology.  Once the cheap technology is there, it's easy to switch over.  If there really were an electric car that was fairly cheap, high-performance, with a decent range, you wouldn't even need legislation  to get people to buy it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with that approach is that most of the G8 do n't want an agreement either .
As much as they all gave lip service to it in Copenhagen.....and sure , some of the representatives do want it , I can accept that Obama was sincere , but even he has no mechanism for enforcing CO2 cuts in his country .
So until the G8 want to cut CO2 , it 's not going to happen .
Personally I think the solution is to step up the search for alternate energy technology .
Once the cheap technology is there , it 's easy to switch over .
If there really were an electric car that was fairly cheap , high-performance , with a decent range , you would n't even need legislation to get people to buy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with that approach is that most of the G8 don't want an agreement either.
As much as they all gave lip service to it in Copenhagen.....and sure, some of the representatives do want it, I can accept that Obama was sincere, but even he has no mechanism for enforcing CO2 cuts in his country.
So until the G8 want to cut CO2, it's not going to happen.
Personally I think the solution is to step up the search for alternate energy technology.
Once the cheap technology is there, it's easy to switch over.
If there really were an electric car that was fairly cheap, high-performance, with a decent range, you wouldn't even need legislation  to get people to buy it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680362</id>
	<title>hipocritical douche</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269955800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>he better not be complaining about my suv while he's taking "free" trips into space.</p><p>How does he take himself seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>he better not be complaining about my suv while he 's taking " free " trips into space.How does he take himself seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he better not be complaining about my suv while he's taking "free" trips into space.How does he take himself seriously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680110</id>
	<title>Just another nutbag</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1269954840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This guy does not represent the rest of rational scientists everywhere. He is as batty as the idiot who claims cell phones harm him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy does not represent the rest of rational scientists everywhere .
He is as batty as the idiot who claims cell phones harm him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy does not represent the rest of rational scientists everywhere.
He is as batty as the idiot who claims cell phones harm him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679758</id>
	<title>Problem is world democracy</title>
	<author>grege1</author>
	<datestamp>1269953160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Copenhagen showed the individual governments of the world will never get past self interest to agree on a common approach. It is pointless having a system where a Pacific or Indian Ocean country can scuttle a brokered deal by voting no. In the end the G8 will have to make an agreement and then enforce it on the rest of the world. So in a sense Lovelock is correct, just at the wrong level of government.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Copenhagen showed the individual governments of the world will never get past self interest to agree on a common approach .
It is pointless having a system where a Pacific or Indian Ocean country can scuttle a brokered deal by voting no .
In the end the G8 will have to make an agreement and then enforce it on the rest of the world .
So in a sense Lovelock is correct , just at the wrong level of government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copenhagen showed the individual governments of the world will never get past self interest to agree on a common approach.
It is pointless having a system where a Pacific or Indian Ocean country can scuttle a brokered deal by voting no.
In the end the G8 will have to make an agreement and then enforce it on the rest of the world.
So in a sense Lovelock is correct, just at the wrong level of government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681060</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>surmak</author>
	<datestamp>1269959280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, that is exactly his point.  In times of war or crisis, the level of democracy is somewhat compromised.  (Look at that the US did during WWII, especially to those of Japanese descent.)</p><p>Global warming is a crisis, but unlike a war, the rights that need to be abridged are not the civil rights of individual people, but rather the freedom of corporations to do as the will in a never ending quest for more wealth and power.  If that is the sacrifice that we are called to make, I will have a hard time mourning the loss of freedom.</p><p>If, on the other hand this is implemented as more wiretaps, secret arrests, torture, restrictions on speech, travel and the like, first of all, I don't see why that would be necessary, and secondly, the cure may be worse than the disease.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , that is exactly his point .
In times of war or crisis , the level of democracy is somewhat compromised .
( Look at that the US did during WWII , especially to those of Japanese descent .
) Global warming is a crisis , but unlike a war , the rights that need to be abridged are not the civil rights of individual people , but rather the freedom of corporations to do as the will in a never ending quest for more wealth and power .
If that is the sacrifice that we are called to make , I will have a hard time mourning the loss of freedom.If , on the other hand this is implemented as more wiretaps , secret arrests , torture , restrictions on speech , travel and the like , first of all , I do n't see why that would be necessary , and secondly , the cure may be worse than the disease .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, that is exactly his point.
In times of war or crisis, the level of democracy is somewhat compromised.
(Look at that the US did during WWII, especially to those of Japanese descent.
)Global warming is a crisis, but unlike a war, the rights that need to be abridged are not the civil rights of individual people, but rather the freedom of corporations to do as the will in a never ending quest for more wealth and power.
If that is the sacrifice that we are called to make, I will have a hard time mourning the loss of freedom.If, on the other hand this is implemented as more wiretaps, secret arrests, torture, restrictions on speech, travel and the like, first of all, I don't see why that would be necessary, and secondly, the cure may be worse than the disease.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680134</id>
	<title>Re:Oh dear</title>
	<author>Greg\_D</author>
	<datestamp>1269954900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, because the world's track record in pre-democratic eras was just SOOOOO innovative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , because the world 's track record in pre-democratic eras was just SOOOOO innovative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, because the world's track record in pre-democratic eras was just SOOOOO innovative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679344</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31684162</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1270068900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And, according to most studies of politician's actual abilities conducted to date, you have a very good probability of ending up with an equally (in)capable government.</p><p>If you added just a small bit of mandatory minimum education standards (say, being able to write one page of comprehensible, mostly gramatically correct, text) then your odds are extremely favourable. Of course, you'd also cut out about half the population.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And , according to most studies of politician 's actual abilities conducted to date , you have a very good probability of ending up with an equally ( in ) capable government.If you added just a small bit of mandatory minimum education standards ( say , being able to write one page of comprehensible , mostly gramatically correct , text ) then your odds are extremely favourable .
Of course , you 'd also cut out about half the population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, according to most studies of politician's actual abilities conducted to date, you have a very good probability of ending up with an equally (in)capable government.If you added just a small bit of mandatory minimum education standards (say, being able to write one page of comprehensible, mostly gramatically correct, text) then your odds are extremely favourable.
Of course, you'd also cut out about half the population.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680462</id>
	<title>Give me liberty or give me death!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269956160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give me liberty or give me death!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give me liberty or give me death !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give me liberty or give me death!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679892</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269953880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do idiots always fail to realize that a republic is a democracy?  It's called a representative DEMOCRACY for a reason.</p><p>Aside from that, the idiot's right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do idiots always fail to realize that a republic is a democracy ?
It 's called a representative DEMOCRACY for a reason.Aside from that , the idiot 's right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do idiots always fail to realize that a republic is a democracy?
It's called a representative DEMOCRACY for a reason.Aside from that, the idiot's right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31693588</id>
	<title>The Earth is not at risk</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1270030740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no risk to Gaia. The Earth will survive. Humanity may or may not. There have been many mass extinctions. We are not even close to the order of one of those. People think too much of themselves.</p><p>The Earth has been warmer and cooler in the past. Species have thrived and died during each cycle. Our species came into existence because of the extinction of our competitors during past extinctions. Given my druthers, I'll take global warming rather than global cooling. Even a little bit of cooling would be disasterous as demonstrated by the past mini-ice ages of the 1800's and other centuries that caused mass starvation and migrations. People are just upset because of there being change and unknown.</p><p>By the way, I don't trust him as dictator so I'll keep Democracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no risk to Gaia .
The Earth will survive .
Humanity may or may not .
There have been many mass extinctions .
We are not even close to the order of one of those .
People think too much of themselves.The Earth has been warmer and cooler in the past .
Species have thrived and died during each cycle .
Our species came into existence because of the extinction of our competitors during past extinctions .
Given my druthers , I 'll take global warming rather than global cooling .
Even a little bit of cooling would be disasterous as demonstrated by the past mini-ice ages of the 1800 's and other centuries that caused mass starvation and migrations .
People are just upset because of there being change and unknown.By the way , I do n't trust him as dictator so I 'll keep Democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no risk to Gaia.
The Earth will survive.
Humanity may or may not.
There have been many mass extinctions.
We are not even close to the order of one of those.
People think too much of themselves.The Earth has been warmer and cooler in the past.
Species have thrived and died during each cycle.
Our species came into existence because of the extinction of our competitors during past extinctions.
Given my druthers, I'll take global warming rather than global cooling.
Even a little bit of cooling would be disasterous as demonstrated by the past mini-ice ages of the 1800's and other centuries that caused mass starvation and migrations.
People are just upset because of there being change and unknown.By the way, I don't trust him as dictator so I'll keep Democracy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680486</id>
	<title>Re:I knew it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269956220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>These doomsday environmentalists are not helping the situation one bit - I am actually interested in renewable energy, electric cars and so on but each time one of these guys opens their mouth I feel like jumping into the car and pouring 70 litres of petrol into the tank while I'm still allowed, you know.</p></div><p>I'm with you brother!  Whenever my wife complains that I'm hitting her too much, I feel like hauling off and whacking her again.  I keep trying to tell her that it is her fault for opening her mouth, but she just keeps making me do it.</p><p>It's like she expects me to have some self-control or something.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These doomsday environmentalists are not helping the situation one bit - I am actually interested in renewable energy , electric cars and so on but each time one of these guys opens their mouth I feel like jumping into the car and pouring 70 litres of petrol into the tank while I 'm still allowed , you know.I 'm with you brother !
Whenever my wife complains that I 'm hitting her too much , I feel like hauling off and whacking her again .
I keep trying to tell her that it is her fault for opening her mouth , but she just keeps making me do it.It 's like she expects me to have some self-control or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These doomsday environmentalists are not helping the situation one bit - I am actually interested in renewable energy, electric cars and so on but each time one of these guys opens their mouth I feel like jumping into the car and pouring 70 litres of petrol into the tank while I'm still allowed, you know.I'm with you brother!
Whenever my wife complains that I'm hitting her too much, I feel like hauling off and whacking her again.
I keep trying to tell her that it is her fault for opening her mouth, but she just keeps making me do it.It's like she expects me to have some self-control or something.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680952</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1269958740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you do a bad job, you usually get fired.</p><p>In the case of a politician it would usually mean a recall election.  Not at the federal level.</p><p>All that's left up there once the politician's butts are in the seats is impeachment, and if the only guys who can impeach you are already feeding out of the same corporate trough you are...you've got it made.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do a bad job , you usually get fired.In the case of a politician it would usually mean a recall election .
Not at the federal level.All that 's left up there once the politician 's butts are in the seats is impeachment , and if the only guys who can impeach you are already feeding out of the same corporate trough you are...you 've got it made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you do a bad job, you usually get fired.In the case of a politician it would usually mean a recall election.
Not at the federal level.All that's left up there once the politician's butts are in the seats is impeachment, and if the only guys who can impeach you are already feeding out of the same corporate trough you are...you've got it made.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685640</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270039740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, because that works so well for jury pools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , because that works so well for jury pools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, because that works so well for jury pools.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31683444</id>
	<title>Re:Crackpot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269975420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hahahahah so your answer to bureaucracy and its problems is to build an even bigger one? what the hell is wrong with you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hahahahah so your answer to bureaucracy and its problems is to build an even bigger one ?
what the hell is wrong with you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hahahahah so your answer to bureaucracy and its problems is to build an even bigger one?
what the hell is wrong with you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685846</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>ChunderDownunder</author>
	<datestamp>1270041540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"We" as in <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/was-the-climate-change-challenge-a-lot-of-hot-political-air-20100330-rbd1.html" title="theage.com.au">Australia?</a> [theage.com.au] The same Australia whose government negotiated a Clayton's 5\% target for a climate change solution only to be sidelined by party politics?
<br> <br>

Somehow I don't think Australian democracy is going to 'solve' climate change any time soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We " as in Australia ?
[ theage.com.au ] The same Australia whose government negotiated a Clayton 's 5 \ % target for a climate change solution only to be sidelined by party politics ?
Somehow I do n't think Australian democracy is going to 'solve ' climate change any time soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We" as in Australia?
[theage.com.au] The same Australia whose government negotiated a Clayton's 5\% target for a climate change solution only to be sidelined by party politics?
Somehow I don't think Australian democracy is going to 'solve' climate change any time soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31686842</id>
	<title>Title Rephrased.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270046940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Climate Change: Burma Leads The Way!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Climate Change : Burma Leads The Way !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climate Change: Burma Leads The Way!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681254</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1269960240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Abolish elections and select your legislatures by random sampling of the population.</p></div></blockquote><p>

He who takes green cloth is green and follows green leader, he who takes green cloth with mark of leader is green leader.<br> <br>

Pretty much the same with war, if we could just put all the flags into a large barrel equal to the number of humans...<br> <br>

So much simpler and without all this xenophobia and nationalism nonsense.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Abolish elections and select your legislatures by random sampling of the population .
He who takes green cloth is green and follows green leader , he who takes green cloth with mark of leader is green leader .
Pretty much the same with war , if we could just put all the flags into a large barrel equal to the number of humans.. . So much simpler and without all this xenophobia and nationalism nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Abolish elections and select your legislatures by random sampling of the population.
He who takes green cloth is green and follows green leader, he who takes green cloth with mark of leader is green leader.
Pretty much the same with war, if we could just put all the flags into a large barrel equal to the number of humans... 

So much simpler and without all this xenophobia and nationalism nonsense.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680962</id>
	<title>You should just make me the Emperor</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1269958800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm running for Emperor of the United States.  As Emperor, I would replace both the Congress and Executive Branch, and I will have the following limited powers</p><p>a) The ability to raise or lower taxes to a maximum of 15\% of GDP, such that no one will be required to work more than 15\% of their lives per year to satisfy my tax.  I will also be allowed to engage government workers and prison convicts in monument building to my person, as I see fit.</p><p>b) The power to spend that money as I see fit, be it entitlements, military, foreign aid, bribes, whatever.  I am also allowed to accept bribes and rename various geographical features after myself.</p><p>c) I will be able to pardon anyone as I need to.</p><p>d) The power to make treaties and present them to the people</p><p>e) The power to regulate commerce between the states.</p><p>The judiciary function would remain independent.</p><p>I will expressly not be allowed to make any law that:</p><p>a) Bans guns, speech, or the possession of most private property,<br>b) Bans certain intoxicating substances, acts of religious expression, requires the death penalty.</p><p>Nor will I be allowed to:</p><p>a) Withhold the pay of, harrass, or otherwise intimidate members of the judiciary.  I will not be able to arrest, search, or electronically eavesdrop on anyone without agreement from the judiciary.</p><p>b) Make treaties, declare war, or borrow money against the credit of the United States, except by permission in a national, popular vote.</p><p>So there, I would be Emperor, you would not be allowed to vote for me, but, you would have more rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm running for Emperor of the United States .
As Emperor , I would replace both the Congress and Executive Branch , and I will have the following limited powersa ) The ability to raise or lower taxes to a maximum of 15 \ % of GDP , such that no one will be required to work more than 15 \ % of their lives per year to satisfy my tax .
I will also be allowed to engage government workers and prison convicts in monument building to my person , as I see fit.b ) The power to spend that money as I see fit , be it entitlements , military , foreign aid , bribes , whatever .
I am also allowed to accept bribes and rename various geographical features after myself.c ) I will be able to pardon anyone as I need to.d ) The power to make treaties and present them to the peoplee ) The power to regulate commerce between the states.The judiciary function would remain independent.I will expressly not be allowed to make any law that : a ) Bans guns , speech , or the possession of most private property,b ) Bans certain intoxicating substances , acts of religious expression , requires the death penalty.Nor will I be allowed to : a ) Withhold the pay of , harrass , or otherwise intimidate members of the judiciary .
I will not be able to arrest , search , or electronically eavesdrop on anyone without agreement from the judiciary.b ) Make treaties , declare war , or borrow money against the credit of the United States , except by permission in a national , popular vote.So there , I would be Emperor , you would not be allowed to vote for me , but , you would have more rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm running for Emperor of the United States.
As Emperor, I would replace both the Congress and Executive Branch, and I will have the following limited powersa) The ability to raise or lower taxes to a maximum of 15\% of GDP, such that no one will be required to work more than 15\% of their lives per year to satisfy my tax.
I will also be allowed to engage government workers and prison convicts in monument building to my person, as I see fit.b) The power to spend that money as I see fit, be it entitlements, military, foreign aid, bribes, whatever.
I am also allowed to accept bribes and rename various geographical features after myself.c) I will be able to pardon anyone as I need to.d) The power to make treaties and present them to the peoplee) The power to regulate commerce between the states.The judiciary function would remain independent.I will expressly not be allowed to make any law that:a) Bans guns, speech, or the possession of most private property,b) Bans certain intoxicating substances, acts of religious expression, requires the death penalty.Nor will I be allowed to:a) Withhold the pay of, harrass, or otherwise intimidate members of the judiciary.
I will not be able to arrest, search, or electronically eavesdrop on anyone without agreement from the judiciary.b) Make treaties, declare war, or borrow money against the credit of the United States, except by permission in a national, popular vote.So there, I would be Emperor, you would not be allowed to vote for me, but, you would have more rights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680642</id>
	<title>Not just stupidity but also addicted</title>
	<author>perr</author>
	<datestamp>1269957000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately humanity is also addicted to democracy and capitalism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately humanity is also addicted to democracy and capitalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately humanity is also addicted to democracy and capitalism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681658</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>Nimey</author>
	<datestamp>1269962340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must not read your local newspaper's letters-to-the-editor.  I'm frankly terrified of letting my bunch of letter-writing loonies be in charge of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/anything/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must not read your local newspaper 's letters-to-the-editor .
I 'm frankly terrified of letting my bunch of letter-writing loonies be in charge of /anything/ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must not read your local newspaper's letters-to-the-editor.
I'm frankly terrified of letting my bunch of letter-writing loonies be in charge of /anything/.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31683554</id>
	<title>Re:Crackpot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269976740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look -- he's not making a recommendation as much as he's making a prediction.  He completely acknowledges that there is no alternative to a democracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look -- he 's not making a recommendation as much as he 's making a prediction .
He completely acknowledges that there is no alternative to a democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look -- he's not making a recommendation as much as he's making a prediction.
He completely acknowledges that there is no alternative to a democracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679686</id>
	<title>Which</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1269952920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Goes to show exactly why climate change nut-jobs are DANGEROUS PEOPLE. But the history of the world is full of examples of killing people for lies. Climate change is a good substitute for (insert diety of choice), or even a political credo (Communism/Maoism/(proving Godwin's law)National Socialism). Hey let's suspend freedom to "save the environment".</p><p>The real problem behind all of this is, of course, overpopulation. I propose that instead of eliminating democracy we should just eliminate around 80\% of the population. I can provide a list of volunteers for extermination (starting with Mr. Lovelock), and I ask others to do likewise. I, of course, choose not to be on any list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Goes to show exactly why climate change nut-jobs are DANGEROUS PEOPLE .
But the history of the world is full of examples of killing people for lies .
Climate change is a good substitute for ( insert diety of choice ) , or even a political credo ( Communism/Maoism/ ( proving Godwin 's law ) National Socialism ) .
Hey let 's suspend freedom to " save the environment " .The real problem behind all of this is , of course , overpopulation .
I propose that instead of eliminating democracy we should just eliminate around 80 \ % of the population .
I can provide a list of volunteers for extermination ( starting with Mr. Lovelock ) , and I ask others to do likewise .
I , of course , choose not to be on any list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goes to show exactly why climate change nut-jobs are DANGEROUS PEOPLE.
But the history of the world is full of examples of killing people for lies.
Climate change is a good substitute for (insert diety of choice), or even a political credo (Communism/Maoism/(proving Godwin's law)National Socialism).
Hey let's suspend freedom to "save the environment".The real problem behind all of this is, of course, overpopulation.
I propose that instead of eliminating democracy we should just eliminate around 80\% of the population.
I can provide a list of volunteers for extermination (starting with Mr. Lovelock), and I ask others to do likewise.
I, of course, choose not to be on any list.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680254</id>
	<title>What Democracy?</title>
	<author>twitcher101</author>
	<datestamp>1269955320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Democracy is a nice ideal, but where is it practiced? Truth is we have governments, they are all basically the same, and the most efficient are dictatorships.

Lovelock is off base about some things, but this solution is really the only solution, because the US proves that there is danger when the majority is wrong or stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Democracy is a nice ideal , but where is it practiced ?
Truth is we have governments , they are all basically the same , and the most efficient are dictatorships .
Lovelock is off base about some things , but this solution is really the only solution , because the US proves that there is danger when the majority is wrong or stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Democracy is a nice ideal, but where is it practiced?
Truth is we have governments, they are all basically the same, and the most efficient are dictatorships.
Lovelock is off base about some things, but this solution is really the only solution, because the US proves that there is danger when the majority is wrong or stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679672</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1269952860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Further, big businesses have way too much influence on our politicians, media, and public opinion. We're essentially a <b>bribeocracry</b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Further , big businesses have way too much influence on our politicians , media , and public opinion .
We 're essentially a bribeocracry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Further, big businesses have way too much influence on our politicians, media, and public opinion.
We're essentially a bribeocracry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681668</id>
	<title>Nobody has welcomed our environmental overlords...</title>
	<author>OpinionatedDude</author>
	<datestamp>1269962340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All your freedom are belong to us.  .  .

In reality, it is already too late to "fix" this by changing the slope of the curve with governmental restrictions on amount/types of energy use.
The only viable solution, and the most likely to happen, is some form of Geoengineering.  At some point, some large country, acting in its own self interest (or in the interest of a well-monied lobbyist) will unilaterally enact a Geoengineering "solution".  This will mostly likely outrage and inconvenience some other country (or lobbyist or large company with internal resources capable of Geoengineering), setting off a chain reaction of competing attempts at geoengineering.

The only viable solution to the coming geoengineering crisis is to put democracy on hold.  .  .</htmltext>
<tokenext>All your freedom are belong to us .
. .
In reality , it is already too late to " fix " this by changing the slope of the curve with governmental restrictions on amount/types of energy use .
The only viable solution , and the most likely to happen , is some form of Geoengineering .
At some point , some large country , acting in its own self interest ( or in the interest of a well-monied lobbyist ) will unilaterally enact a Geoengineering " solution " .
This will mostly likely outrage and inconvenience some other country ( or lobbyist or large company with internal resources capable of Geoengineering ) , setting off a chain reaction of competing attempts at geoengineering .
The only viable solution to the coming geoengineering crisis is to put democracy on hold .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All your freedom are belong to us.
.  .
In reality, it is already too late to "fix" this by changing the slope of the curve with governmental restrictions on amount/types of energy use.
The only viable solution, and the most likely to happen, is some form of Geoengineering.
At some point, some large country, acting in its own self interest (or in the interest of a well-monied lobbyist) will unilaterally enact a Geoengineering "solution".
This will mostly likely outrage and inconvenience some other country (or lobbyist or large company with internal resources capable of Geoengineering), setting off a chain reaction of competing attempts at geoengineering.
The only viable solution to the coming geoengineering crisis is to put democracy on hold.
.  .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682576</id>
	<title>I've hear this before...</title>
	<author>nsaspook</author>
	<datestamp>1269967680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B\%E1\%BA\%BFn\_Tre" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B\%E1\%BA\%BFn\_Tre</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>"We had to destroy the village in order to save it."[</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B \ % E1 \ % BA \ % BFn \ _Tre [ wikipedia.org ] " We had to destroy the village in order to save it .
" [</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B\%E1\%BA\%BFn\_Tre [wikipedia.org]"We had to destroy the village in order to save it.
"[</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31690088</id>
	<title>govt is a utility</title>
	<author>minstrelmike</author>
	<datestamp>1270060260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real problem with democracy is that it makes people think that if enough people think the same way, then that is the way the world ought to work.<br> <br>
Economics obscures the fact that we live because of food and shelter and when that gets scarce, nothing else matters.<br> <br>
Democracy would work beautifully if we could vote on making corn grow or air pollution magically disappear without cost.<br> <br>
The history of war and revolution is presented as based on ideas, but those are only what groups rally around. The reason they end up fighting is because the resources run out (bad weather leads to crop failure, good weather leads to more people which requires more resources). Technology changes the amount of resources available so it is hard to pick out but plotting history by population/resources against weather shows more correlation than plotting it by which king married which queen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem with democracy is that it makes people think that if enough people think the same way , then that is the way the world ought to work .
Economics obscures the fact that we live because of food and shelter and when that gets scarce , nothing else matters .
Democracy would work beautifully if we could vote on making corn grow or air pollution magically disappear without cost .
The history of war and revolution is presented as based on ideas , but those are only what groups rally around .
The reason they end up fighting is because the resources run out ( bad weather leads to crop failure , good weather leads to more people which requires more resources ) .
Technology changes the amount of resources available so it is hard to pick out but plotting history by population/resources against weather shows more correlation than plotting it by which king married which queen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem with democracy is that it makes people think that if enough people think the same way, then that is the way the world ought to work.
Economics obscures the fact that we live because of food and shelter and when that gets scarce, nothing else matters.
Democracy would work beautifully if we could vote on making corn grow or air pollution magically disappear without cost.
The history of war and revolution is presented as based on ideas, but those are only what groups rally around.
The reason they end up fighting is because the resources run out (bad weather leads to crop failure, good weather leads to more people which requires more resources).
Technology changes the amount of resources available so it is hard to pick out but plotting history by population/resources against weather shows more correlation than plotting it by which king married which queen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681126</id>
	<title>why is this modded "insightful"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269959580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think so...at the same time, this guy has to be the first environmentalist to speak the truth behind their extremist message: it's about controlling people's lives, and less about the environment.</p></div><p>wait a minute: you're saying that the goal of environmentalists ( all or at least the majority ) is to control people's lives, NOT ACTUALLY to save the environment for future human inhabitants?</p><p>you sir, are a silly goose.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think so...at the same time , this guy has to be the first environmentalist to speak the truth behind their extremist message : it 's about controlling people 's lives , and less about the environment.wait a minute : you 're saying that the goal of environmentalists ( all or at least the majority ) is to control people 's lives , NOT ACTUALLY to save the environment for future human inhabitants ? you sir , are a silly goose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think so...at the same time, this guy has to be the first environmentalist to speak the truth behind their extremist message: it's about controlling people's lives, and less about the environment.wait a minute: you're saying that the goal of environmentalists ( all or at least the majority ) is to control people's lives, NOT ACTUALLY to save the environment for future human inhabitants?you sir, are a silly goose.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681466</id>
	<title>Anon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269961260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's nice to see people are thinking about these kinds of things but quite frankly the human race has their heads so far up their backsides.<br>We are never going to remove them fast enough to save planet... let alone ourselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's nice to see people are thinking about these kinds of things but quite frankly the human race has their heads so far up their backsides.We are never going to remove them fast enough to save planet... let alone ourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's nice to see people are thinking about these kinds of things but quite frankly the human race has their heads so far up their backsides.We are never going to remove them fast enough to save planet... let alone ourselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31684886</id>
	<title>Re:Crackpot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270032420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Bring on the TRULY democratic, one-world government!</i></p><p>Allright! Let's start a website!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bring on the TRULY democratic , one-world government ! Allright !
Let 's start a website !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bring on the TRULY democratic, one-world government!Allright!
Let's start a website!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685258</id>
	<title>Re:LOL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270036320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BOMB THEM!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BOMB THEM !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BOMB THEM!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679782</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>Jeremi</author>
	<datestamp>1269953280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Ban the party system.</i></p><p>Which party should we support in order to get that change implemented?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ban the party system.Which party should we support in order to get that change implemented ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ban the party system.Which party should we support in order to get that change implemented?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31684144</id>
	<title>he's right</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1270068660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you take the full context, not a choice quote, he is right. His claim is essentially that, once the crisis is in full swing, democracy will be unable to solve it. So his argument is not "suspend democracy now", but "solve this crisis now, or we will lose democracy later".</p><p>And he's damn right. Democracy is incapable of rapid reactions and taking risks. And I say that after having headed a democratic institution for several years, having had to win several elections to get to that point. Democracy is great for consensus and forming solutions that take many points of view into account. Democracy sucks at reacting quickly and it sucks at acting fact-based.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you take the full context , not a choice quote , he is right .
His claim is essentially that , once the crisis is in full swing , democracy will be unable to solve it .
So his argument is not " suspend democracy now " , but " solve this crisis now , or we will lose democracy later " .And he 's damn right .
Democracy is incapable of rapid reactions and taking risks .
And I say that after having headed a democratic institution for several years , having had to win several elections to get to that point .
Democracy is great for consensus and forming solutions that take many points of view into account .
Democracy sucks at reacting quickly and it sucks at acting fact-based .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you take the full context, not a choice quote, he is right.
His claim is essentially that, once the crisis is in full swing, democracy will be unable to solve it.
So his argument is not "suspend democracy now", but "solve this crisis now, or we will lose democracy later".And he's damn right.
Democracy is incapable of rapid reactions and taking risks.
And I say that after having headed a democratic institution for several years, having had to win several elections to get to that point.
Democracy is great for consensus and forming solutions that take many points of view into account.
Democracy sucks at reacting quickly and it sucks at acting fact-based.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31687024</id>
	<title>Dain bramaged</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270047780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly an example of the advanced stages of dementia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly an example of the advanced stages of dementia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly an example of the advanced stages of dementia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682456</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>jedwidz</author>
	<datestamp>1269967020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was going to make a similar point.</p><p>All an environmental movement needs to do is get all the major political parties in all the major countries on-side, and then 'democracy' as we know it becomes irrelevant.</p><p>That's not going to be cheap, but it's going to be a lot cheaper and I daresay <b>more effective</b> than bribing all the voters.  A few well-meaning individuals with deep pockets and questionable morals could probably pull it off.</p><p>I wonder what Bill Gates has on his to-do list this week?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to make a similar point.All an environmental movement needs to do is get all the major political parties in all the major countries on-side , and then 'democracy ' as we know it becomes irrelevant.That 's not going to be cheap , but it 's going to be a lot cheaper and I daresay more effective than bribing all the voters .
A few well-meaning individuals with deep pockets and questionable morals could probably pull it off.I wonder what Bill Gates has on his to-do list this week ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to make a similar point.All an environmental movement needs to do is get all the major political parties in all the major countries on-side, and then 'democracy' as we know it becomes irrelevant.That's not going to be cheap, but it's going to be a lot cheaper and I daresay more effective than bribing all the voters.
A few well-meaning individuals with deep pockets and questionable morals could probably pull it off.I wonder what Bill Gates has on his to-do list this week?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31686724</id>
	<title>Someone explain this:</title>
	<author>Foolhardly</author>
	<datestamp>1270046460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the earth is 4.5+ billion years old, how can anyone be so blatantly ignorant as to assume that we can put stock in numbers like "the hottest decade on record" based off 200 years of climate history?

I lean heavily toward environmental conservation, but for my own reasons.  No one has ever been able to answer this question for me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the earth is 4.5 + billion years old , how can anyone be so blatantly ignorant as to assume that we can put stock in numbers like " the hottest decade on record " based off 200 years of climate history ?
I lean heavily toward environmental conservation , but for my own reasons .
No one has ever been able to answer this question for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the earth is 4.5+ billion years old, how can anyone be so blatantly ignorant as to assume that we can put stock in numbers like "the hottest decade on record" based off 200 years of climate history?
I lean heavily toward environmental conservation, but for my own reasons.
No one has ever been able to answer this question for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682082</id>
	<title>Re:Problem is world democracy</title>
	<author>alexibu</author>
	<datestamp>1269964800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Small countries scuttle a deal ? What version of history are you using ?<br>
The DEAL agreed by 117 countries was stabilization at 350ppm.<br>
Then the countries that have the historical responsibility for the problem, are the major current cause of the problem decided that they should also be the future cause of the problem, and couldn't agree to anything that might cause them to show leadership in their own countries.<br>
Are you seriously suggesting countries like Maldives and Tuvalu should have signed up to what would have been a suicide pact for them with the rich nations, just to be cooperative ?
That is not democracy. That is pure self interest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Small countries scuttle a deal ?
What version of history are you using ?
The DEAL agreed by 117 countries was stabilization at 350ppm .
Then the countries that have the historical responsibility for the problem , are the major current cause of the problem decided that they should also be the future cause of the problem , and could n't agree to anything that might cause them to show leadership in their own countries .
Are you seriously suggesting countries like Maldives and Tuvalu should have signed up to what would have been a suicide pact for them with the rich nations , just to be cooperative ?
That is not democracy .
That is pure self interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Small countries scuttle a deal ?
What version of history are you using ?
The DEAL agreed by 117 countries was stabilization at 350ppm.
Then the countries that have the historical responsibility for the problem, are the major current cause of the problem decided that they should also be the future cause of the problem, and couldn't agree to anything that might cause them to show leadership in their own countries.
Are you seriously suggesting countries like Maldives and Tuvalu should have signed up to what would have been a suicide pact for them with the rich nations, just to be cooperative ?
That is not democracy.
That is pure self interest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679592</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ban the party system</p></div></blockquote><p>How?</p><p>And I don't mean "how could it be possible", I mean "how, specifically, would you do it?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ban the party systemHow ? And I do n't mean " how could it be possible " , I mean " how , specifically , would you do it ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ban the party systemHow?And I don't mean "how could it be possible", I mean "how, specifically, would you do it?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31686310</id>
	<title>if you disagree, sean penn will have you arrested.</title>
	<author>steak</author>
	<datestamp>1270044360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lets just hope sean penn doesn't befriend this lovelock character.  your probably safe as long as you don't comment about hugo chavez or the castros.</p><p><a href="http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/03/08/sean-penn-suggests-prison-time-journalists-who-call-hugo-chavez-dictator" title="newsbusters.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/03/08/sean-penn-suggests-prison-time-journalists-who-call-hugo-chavez-dictator</a> [newsbusters.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lets just hope sean penn does n't befriend this lovelock character .
your probably safe as long as you do n't comment about hugo chavez or the castros.http : //www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/03/08/sean-penn-suggests-prison-time-journalists-who-call-hugo-chavez-dictator [ newsbusters.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lets just hope sean penn doesn't befriend this lovelock character.
your probably safe as long as you don't comment about hugo chavez or the castros.http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2010/03/08/sean-penn-suggests-prison-time-journalists-who-call-hugo-chavez-dictator [newsbusters.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679520</id>
	<title>Not a good idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>We have to suspend democracy in order to save it eh?
Sounds like the Vietnam era "we have to destroy the village to save it".</htmltext>
<tokenext>We have to suspend democracy in order to save it eh ?
Sounds like the Vietnam era " we have to destroy the village to save it " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have to suspend democracy in order to save it eh?
Sounds like the Vietnam era "we have to destroy the village to save it".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680018</id>
	<title>I suggest we put 'celebrity' on hold instead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269954420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been thinking for a while now that our world can no longer afford the vast and growing number of celebrities that compete for our attention and our economic output. If a cap were put on the number of celebrities, at say 15\% of the number that now exist, and new ones could only be created when an existing one had died and been forgotten, then the total impact to the environment and the economy would be vastly reduced. The number of pages in the tabloids would drop by a factor of five at least, saving countless trees. The number of jet trips to film festivals and book signings would be likewise drastically chopped.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been thinking for a while now that our world can no longer afford the vast and growing number of celebrities that compete for our attention and our economic output .
If a cap were put on the number of celebrities , at say 15 \ % of the number that now exist , and new ones could only be created when an existing one had died and been forgotten , then the total impact to the environment and the economy would be vastly reduced .
The number of pages in the tabloids would drop by a factor of five at least , saving countless trees .
The number of jet trips to film festivals and book signings would be likewise drastically chopped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been thinking for a while now that our world can no longer afford the vast and growing number of celebrities that compete for our attention and our economic output.
If a cap were put on the number of celebrities, at say 15\% of the number that now exist, and new ones could only be created when an existing one had died and been forgotten, then the total impact to the environment and the economy would be vastly reduced.
The number of pages in the tabloids would drop by a factor of five at least, saving countless trees.
The number of jet trips to film festivals and book signings would be likewise drastically chopped.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680842</id>
	<title>Grab your dictionary buddy, you need it.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1269958080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A republic can be a democracy. They are non exclusive terms.</p><p>It seems like in the US somebody is disseminating this nonsense since very often people in this venerable website claim this fallacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A republic can be a democracy .
They are non exclusive terms.It seems like in the US somebody is disseminating this nonsense since very often people in this venerable website claim this fallacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A republic can be a democracy.
They are non exclusive terms.It seems like in the US somebody is disseminating this nonsense since very often people in this venerable website claim this fallacy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679558</id>
	<title>Tomorrow belongs to me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lovelock's lovely idealism is well represented by the Nazi record on human rights, the Soviet Union's record on pollution, and Pol Pot's support for intellectual inquiry.  Mugabi's farm programs come to mind.</p><p>Totalitarian regimes are often started by the firey passions of committed intellectuals, who are shot once the populist revolutions they engender empower the thugs to take control.  Then we see what happens to their pretty ideas.  Villa for me, firing squad for you.  Thanks, nerd, for my family's newfound power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lovelock 's lovely idealism is well represented by the Nazi record on human rights , the Soviet Union 's record on pollution , and Pol Pot 's support for intellectual inquiry .
Mugabi 's farm programs come to mind.Totalitarian regimes are often started by the firey passions of committed intellectuals , who are shot once the populist revolutions they engender empower the thugs to take control .
Then we see what happens to their pretty ideas .
Villa for me , firing squad for you .
Thanks , nerd , for my family 's newfound power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lovelock's lovely idealism is well represented by the Nazi record on human rights, the Soviet Union's record on pollution, and Pol Pot's support for intellectual inquiry.
Mugabi's farm programs come to mind.Totalitarian regimes are often started by the firey passions of committed intellectuals, who are shot once the populist revolutions they engender empower the thugs to take control.
Then we see what happens to their pretty ideas.
Villa for me, firing squad for you.
Thanks, nerd, for my family's newfound power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31684312</id>
	<title>Re:LOL</title>
	<author>Burnhard</author>
	<datestamp>1270027020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He's wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31688660</id>
	<title>Re:Not a good idea</title>
	<author>Bemopolis</author>
	<datestamp>1270054140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or the more current casting, "We have to torture people to preserve our human rights."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or the more current casting , " We have to torture people to preserve our human rights .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or the more current casting, "We have to torture people to preserve our human rights.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685264</id>
	<title>What democracy?</title>
	<author>Archtech</author>
	<datestamp>1270036320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was Lovelock referring to the system of elective oligarchy that prevails in the "West", and which it is forcibly imposing on the rest of the world as fast as possible?</p><p>Democracy means rule by the people, or a system in which the people have power. In Britain and the USA today, however, the vast majority of people have no power at all. Once every 5 or 7 years (give or take) they get the opportunity to vote in an election, and thus to help choose which of the two dominant political parties will govern the nation for the next 5 or 7 years. But increasingly, they find that there is no practical difference between those parties. In Britain, the Labour party is no longer socialist in any meaningful way, while the Conservative party has given up all pretense of conserving anything (because that would be too unpopular). Even the third-placed Liberal party is strikingly illiberal in most of its attitudes and policies - and, of course, it enjoys the inestimable luxury of never having governed (in its present form) and being unlikely ever to be called on to do so. Much the same is true of the USA. What Gore Vidal wrote 35 years ago is even more accurate today:</p><p>"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt&mdash;until recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties".</p><p>The reason we do not have democracy (and never had, apart from that brief flirtation in Athens which ended in utter ruin) is the plain and simple fact that human beings are not equal. Not at all, not in any way. Some of us* are incomparably cleverer, more decisive, more determined, more ruthless, more charismatic, or all of these combined. And they are the ones who get what they want, while everyone else is left wondering where it all went wrong.</p><p>*To save the smartarses among us a little time, let me say that I am most certainly NOT one of the elite. Quite the contrary, in fact, as demonstrated by the fact that I am here discussing this with others of the reality-based community (aka losers).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was Lovelock referring to the system of elective oligarchy that prevails in the " West " , and which it is forcibly imposing on the rest of the world as fast as possible ? Democracy means rule by the people , or a system in which the people have power .
In Britain and the USA today , however , the vast majority of people have no power at all .
Once every 5 or 7 years ( give or take ) they get the opportunity to vote in an election , and thus to help choose which of the two dominant political parties will govern the nation for the next 5 or 7 years .
But increasingly , they find that there is no practical difference between those parties .
In Britain , the Labour party is no longer socialist in any meaningful way , while the Conservative party has given up all pretense of conserving anything ( because that would be too unpopular ) .
Even the third-placed Liberal party is strikingly illiberal in most of its attitudes and policies - and , of course , it enjoys the inestimable luxury of never having governed ( in its present form ) and being unlikely ever to be called on to do so .
Much the same is true of the USA .
What Gore Vidal wrote 35 years ago is even more accurate today : " There is only one party in the United States , the Property Party...and it has two right wings : Republican and Democrat .
Republicans are a bit stupider , more rigid , more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats , who are cuter , prettier , a bit more corrupt    until recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor , the black , the anti-imperialists get out of hand .
But , essentially , there is no difference between the two parties " .The reason we do not have democracy ( and never had , apart from that brief flirtation in Athens which ended in utter ruin ) is the plain and simple fact that human beings are not equal .
Not at all , not in any way .
Some of us * are incomparably cleverer , more decisive , more determined , more ruthless , more charismatic , or all of these combined .
And they are the ones who get what they want , while everyone else is left wondering where it all went wrong .
* To save the smartarses among us a little time , let me say that I am most certainly NOT one of the elite .
Quite the contrary , in fact , as demonstrated by the fact that I am here discussing this with others of the reality-based community ( aka losers ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was Lovelock referring to the system of elective oligarchy that prevails in the "West", and which it is forcibly imposing on the rest of the world as fast as possible?Democracy means rule by the people, or a system in which the people have power.
In Britain and the USA today, however, the vast majority of people have no power at all.
Once every 5 or 7 years (give or take) they get the opportunity to vote in an election, and thus to help choose which of the two dominant political parties will govern the nation for the next 5 or 7 years.
But increasingly, they find that there is no practical difference between those parties.
In Britain, the Labour party is no longer socialist in any meaningful way, while the Conservative party has given up all pretense of conserving anything (because that would be too unpopular).
Even the third-placed Liberal party is strikingly illiberal in most of its attitudes and policies - and, of course, it enjoys the inestimable luxury of never having governed (in its present form) and being unlikely ever to be called on to do so.
Much the same is true of the USA.
What Gore Vidal wrote 35 years ago is even more accurate today:"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat.
Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt—until recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand.
But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties".The reason we do not have democracy (and never had, apart from that brief flirtation in Athens which ended in utter ruin) is the plain and simple fact that human beings are not equal.
Not at all, not in any way.
Some of us* are incomparably cleverer, more decisive, more determined, more ruthless, more charismatic, or all of these combined.
And they are the ones who get what they want, while everyone else is left wondering where it all went wrong.
*To save the smartarses among us a little time, let me say that I am most certainly NOT one of the elite.
Quite the contrary, in fact, as demonstrated by the fact that I am here discussing this with others of the reality-based community (aka losers).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31684642</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270030020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rather than that, the solution is to do it the other way round.</p><p>Make the Congress and Senate by random sampling the population. Then let them chose the government among them as they wish. And take elections after the mandate. If the government passes the election, honor they for life. Otherwise, to jail with them. And do it all on TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rather than that , the solution is to do it the other way round.Make the Congress and Senate by random sampling the population .
Then let them chose the government among them as they wish .
And take elections after the mandate .
If the government passes the election , honor they for life .
Otherwise , to jail with them .
And do it all on TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rather than that, the solution is to do it the other way round.Make the Congress and Senate by random sampling the population.
Then let them chose the government among them as they wish.
And take elections after the mandate.
If the government passes the election, honor they for life.
Otherwise, to jail with them.
And do it all on TV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679720</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269953040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Democratic Republic is a form of democracy, just not more direct Hellenistic democracy.   And though I highly admire George Washington and nearly all of his legacies, where he was wrong was his opposition to parties/factions.  The rise of parties/factions is what holds together such a geographically large "Republican" Federation. When national parties break down, you are left with local, regional factions; the American Civil War.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Democratic Republic is a form of democracy , just not more direct Hellenistic democracy .
And though I highly admire George Washington and nearly all of his legacies , where he was wrong was his opposition to parties/factions .
The rise of parties/factions is what holds together such a geographically large " Republican " Federation .
When national parties break down , you are left with local , regional factions ; the American Civil War .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Democratic Republic is a form of democracy, just not more direct Hellenistic democracy.
And though I highly admire George Washington and nearly all of his legacies, where he was wrong was his opposition to parties/factions.
The rise of parties/factions is what holds together such a geographically large "Republican" Federation.
When national parties break down, you are left with local, regional factions; the American Civil War.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679630</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>Cassius Corodes</author>
	<datestamp>1269952680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have to think through what the alternative would look like - many countries in Europe have a whole bunch of parties in parliament, and this causes problems as they have to band together 5 or 6 to get a Govt. going, and then because there is so much difference of opinion nothing major gets addressed, and if they try to then Govt. collapses. What I think the US needs is actually something similar to Australia - preference voting combined with strong party discipline. You can vote for who you want without "throwing away your vote", and the party that is in charge doesn't have to bribe its own members (i.e. pork) to pass a bill. We have a two party system as well but without many of the problems of the US or the multi-party european system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to think through what the alternative would look like - many countries in Europe have a whole bunch of parties in parliament , and this causes problems as they have to band together 5 or 6 to get a Govt .
going , and then because there is so much difference of opinion nothing major gets addressed , and if they try to then Govt .
collapses. What I think the US needs is actually something similar to Australia - preference voting combined with strong party discipline .
You can vote for who you want without " throwing away your vote " , and the party that is in charge does n't have to bribe its own members ( i.e .
pork ) to pass a bill .
We have a two party system as well but without many of the problems of the US or the multi-party european system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to think through what the alternative would look like - many countries in Europe have a whole bunch of parties in parliament, and this causes problems as they have to band together 5 or 6 to get a Govt.
going, and then because there is so much difference of opinion nothing major gets addressed, and if they try to then Govt.
collapses. What I think the US needs is actually something similar to Australia - preference voting combined with strong party discipline.
You can vote for who you want without "throwing away your vote", and the party that is in charge doesn't have to bribe its own members (i.e.
pork) to pass a bill.
We have a two party system as well but without many of the problems of the US or the multi-party european system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31695884</id>
	<title>Re:I knew it</title>
	<author>An Onerous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1270042800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Concern troll much?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Concern troll much ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Concern troll much?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680772</id>
	<title>Re:Crackpot</title>
	<author>dirkdodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1269957780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fucking brilliant. What could be more fair than one person, one vote, majority rule, world wide?!</p><p>Just think, instead of arrogant Westerners and their so-caled human rights running the show, we could have a truly democratic world government dominated 2nd and 3rd world fascists sharing their enlightened values with us! Oh blessing of blessings!</p><p>Why, we could bring about a truly egalitarian society in a generation! A whole fucking planet living in mud huts, herding goats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fucking brilliant .
What could be more fair than one person , one vote , majority rule , world wide ?
! Just think , instead of arrogant Westerners and their so-caled human rights running the show , we could have a truly democratic world government dominated 2nd and 3rd world fascists sharing their enlightened values with us !
Oh blessing of blessings ! Why , we could bring about a truly egalitarian society in a generation !
A whole fucking planet living in mud huts , herding goats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fucking brilliant.
What could be more fair than one person, one vote, majority rule, world wide?
!Just think, instead of arrogant Westerners and their so-caled human rights running the show, we could have a truly democratic world government dominated 2nd and 3rd world fascists sharing their enlightened values with us!
Oh blessing of blessings!Why, we could bring about a truly egalitarian society in a generation!
A whole fucking planet living in mud huts, herding goats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680638</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>sproketboy</author>
	<datestamp>1269957000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not the party system perse that's the problem in the US - it's that it's not a parliamentary democracy.  Parties in the US don't have platforms - they are more like associations than parties.   Each rep in the US can vote however they want on any issue really.</p><p>In Canada a party has a platform and when elected - they are supposed to follow their platform. Otherwise we remove and replace the WHOLE GOVERNMENT - like we did with Mulroney.</p><p>Canada did have the advantage though of being about 100 years younger so we had the chance to look at the US to see what doesn't work and correct it in our system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the party system perse that 's the problem in the US - it 's that it 's not a parliamentary democracy .
Parties in the US do n't have platforms - they are more like associations than parties .
Each rep in the US can vote however they want on any issue really.In Canada a party has a platform and when elected - they are supposed to follow their platform .
Otherwise we remove and replace the WHOLE GOVERNMENT - like we did with Mulroney.Canada did have the advantage though of being about 100 years younger so we had the chance to look at the US to see what does n't work and correct it in our system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the party system perse that's the problem in the US - it's that it's not a parliamentary democracy.
Parties in the US don't have platforms - they are more like associations than parties.
Each rep in the US can vote however they want on any issue really.In Canada a party has a platform and when elected - they are supposed to follow their platform.
Otherwise we remove and replace the WHOLE GOVERNMENT - like we did with Mulroney.Canada did have the advantage though of being about 100 years younger so we had the chance to look at the US to see what doesn't work and correct it in our system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680968</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>Ozlanthos</author>
	<datestamp>1269958860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I got a better one for you. How about "YOU", take the time to find candidates who resonate with "YOUR" thinking, and vote for them. I know, it makes so much more sense to vote for someone YOU DON'T WANT, than it does to "THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY" on someone you believe in. As stupid as it sounds, that is the most popular rational for not voting for Independents. It's really sad too, considering that the only people who talk about fixing problems in ways that actually work (meaning those not bound to see to the desires of monied interests, or government bureaucracy before those of their constituents)  are amongst the Indies.
<br>
<br>
-Oz</htmltext>
<tokenext>I got a better one for you .
How about " YOU " , take the time to find candidates who resonate with " YOUR " thinking , and vote for them .
I know , it makes so much more sense to vote for someone YOU DO N'T WANT , than it does to " THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY " on someone you believe in .
As stupid as it sounds , that is the most popular rational for not voting for Independents .
It 's really sad too , considering that the only people who talk about fixing problems in ways that actually work ( meaning those not bound to see to the desires of monied interests , or government bureaucracy before those of their constituents ) are amongst the Indies .
-Oz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got a better one for you.
How about "YOU", take the time to find candidates who resonate with "YOUR" thinking, and vote for them.
I know, it makes so much more sense to vote for someone YOU DON'T WANT, than it does to "THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY" on someone you believe in.
As stupid as it sounds, that is the most popular rational for not voting for Independents.
It's really sad too, considering that the only people who talk about fixing problems in ways that actually work (meaning those not bound to see to the desires of monied interests, or government bureaucracy before those of their constituents)  are amongst the Indies.
-Oz</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679668</id>
	<title>Let's go to the videotape</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lovelock is being taken out of context.  A more full quote:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But it can't happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What's the alternative to democracy? There isn't one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.</p></div><p>From the slightly-less-badly-edited interview at:</p><p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock" title="guardian.co.uk">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock</a> [guardian.co.uk]</p><p>In other words, he's not calling for putting democracy on hold.  He's predicting that it's going to reach a point where it's an obvious, impending crisis, like a war, and people aren't going to respond democratically to it.</p><p>He doesn't believe people are going to take climate change seriously until it's too late.  Or at least, not enough people.  There will continue to be arguments and finger-pointing until it finally becomes obvious.  Not that it's a good thing, just a thing he expects.</p><p>Read the rest of the interview, and Lovelock sounds less like a monster than the article is trying to make him out to be.  He's still elitist, proudly so:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Science was always elitist and has to be elitist. The very idea of diluting it down [to be more egalitarian] is crazy. We're paying the price for it now.</p></div><p>but he's not calling for an end to democracy.  He's simply telling everybody they'll be sorry if they don't listen to him.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lovelock is being taken out of context .
A more full quote : But it ca n't happen in a modern democracy .
This is one of the problems .
What 's the alternative to democracy ?
There is n't one .
But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches , democracy must be put on hold for the time being .
I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war .
It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.From the slightly-less-badly-edited interview at : http : //www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock [ guardian.co.uk ] In other words , he 's not calling for putting democracy on hold .
He 's predicting that it 's going to reach a point where it 's an obvious , impending crisis , like a war , and people are n't going to respond democratically to it.He does n't believe people are going to take climate change seriously until it 's too late .
Or at least , not enough people .
There will continue to be arguments and finger-pointing until it finally becomes obvious .
Not that it 's a good thing , just a thing he expects.Read the rest of the interview , and Lovelock sounds less like a monster than the article is trying to make him out to be .
He 's still elitist , proudly so : Science was always elitist and has to be elitist .
The very idea of diluting it down [ to be more egalitarian ] is crazy .
We 're paying the price for it now.but he 's not calling for an end to democracy .
He 's simply telling everybody they 'll be sorry if they do n't listen to him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lovelock is being taken out of context.
A more full quote:But it can't happen in a modern democracy.
This is one of the problems.
What's the alternative to democracy?
There isn't one.
But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being.
I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war.
It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.From the slightly-less-badly-edited interview at:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock [guardian.co.uk]In other words, he's not calling for putting democracy on hold.
He's predicting that it's going to reach a point where it's an obvious, impending crisis, like a war, and people aren't going to respond democratically to it.He doesn't believe people are going to take climate change seriously until it's too late.
Or at least, not enough people.
There will continue to be arguments and finger-pointing until it finally becomes obvious.
Not that it's a good thing, just a thing he expects.Read the rest of the interview, and Lovelock sounds less like a monster than the article is trying to make him out to be.
He's still elitist, proudly so:Science was always elitist and has to be elitist.
The very idea of diluting it down [to be more egalitarian] is crazy.
We're paying the price for it now.but he's not calling for an end to democracy.
He's simply telling everybody they'll be sorry if they don't listen to him.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680082</id>
	<title>New god-emperor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269954720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree completely. We should definately put democracy on hold...and I propose myself as the new god-emperor of Earth. As the new supreme Earth being, my first act will be to inform you all that my mere awesomeness has averted the catastrophe. Of course, that will only remain true as long as I am supplied with an endless supply of submissive women, beer, and skittles.</p><p>BTW, Lovecock...L. Ron Hubbard called and he wants his plotline back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree completely .
We should definately put democracy on hold...and I propose myself as the new god-emperor of Earth .
As the new supreme Earth being , my first act will be to inform you all that my mere awesomeness has averted the catastrophe .
Of course , that will only remain true as long as I am supplied with an endless supply of submissive women , beer , and skittles.BTW , Lovecock...L. Ron Hubbard called and he wants his plotline back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree completely.
We should definately put democracy on hold...and I propose myself as the new god-emperor of Earth.
As the new supreme Earth being, my first act will be to inform you all that my mere awesomeness has averted the catastrophe.
Of course, that will only remain true as long as I am supplied with an endless supply of submissive women, beer, and skittles.BTW, Lovecock...L. Ron Hubbard called and he wants his plotline back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680190</id>
	<title>Re:LOL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269955140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One, and only one, of the following is true:</p><p>1.  All environmentalists have all the same opinions as James Lovelock on everything.</p><p>2.  You're an idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One , and only one , of the following is true : 1 .
All environmentalists have all the same opinions as James Lovelock on everything.2 .
You 're an idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One, and only one, of the following is true:1.
All environmentalists have all the same opinions as James Lovelock on everything.2.
You're an idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31690020</id>
	<title>Put him up against a wall</title>
	<author>kheldan</author>
	<datestamp>1270060080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This Lovelock character needs killing in the most desperate sort of way for making a comment like that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This Lovelock character needs killing in the most desperate sort of way for making a comment like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This Lovelock character needs killing in the most desperate sort of way for making a comment like that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31684768</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270031160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We'd do much better to randomly select from the population about a hundred people who are then massively educated on whatever issue they are then allowed to vote on.  Randomly selecting a public official, you might end up with a complete idiot, but randomly selecting a hundred people, only a few will be complete idiots, and allowing only that small group to vote means that they can have direct access to all of the candidates, and so it doesn't matter which candidate has the most money.  As an added bonus, it whomever those hundred people might choose is statistically likely to be whomever everyone would have chosen had they gone through the same process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'd do much better to randomly select from the population about a hundred people who are then massively educated on whatever issue they are then allowed to vote on .
Randomly selecting a public official , you might end up with a complete idiot , but randomly selecting a hundred people , only a few will be complete idiots , and allowing only that small group to vote means that they can have direct access to all of the candidates , and so it does n't matter which candidate has the most money .
As an added bonus , it whomever those hundred people might choose is statistically likely to be whomever everyone would have chosen had they gone through the same process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'd do much better to randomly select from the population about a hundred people who are then massively educated on whatever issue they are then allowed to vote on.
Randomly selecting a public official, you might end up with a complete idiot, but randomly selecting a hundred people, only a few will be complete idiots, and allowing only that small group to vote means that they can have direct access to all of the candidates, and so it doesn't matter which candidate has the most money.
As an added bonus, it whomever those hundred people might choose is statistically likely to be whomever everyone would have chosen had they gone through the same process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31689290</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>morgajel</author>
	<datestamp>1270056960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, so we should use the same system that we use to select juries?</p><p>What could possibly go wrong?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , so we should use the same system that we use to select juries ? What could possibly go wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, so we should use the same system that we use to select juries?What could possibly go wrong?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680092</id>
	<title>I sense a great disturbance in the Force...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269954780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...like millions of skeptics crying out, "See? I told you that's what they were really after all along!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...like millions of skeptics crying out , " See ?
I told you that 's what they were really after all along !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...like millions of skeptics crying out, "See?
I told you that's what they were really after all along!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682568</id>
	<title>Why didn't I think of that?</title>
	<author>J'raxis</author>
	<datestamp>1269967620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can't convince enough people that your science is correct, just force them to agree with you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ca n't convince enough people that your science is correct , just force them to agree with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can't convince enough people that your science is correct, just force them to agree with you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682030</id>
	<title>Re:Let's go to the videotape</title>
	<author>LingNoi</author>
	<datestamp>1269964440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do I really have to quote both your text...</p><blockquote><div><p>In other words, he's not calling for putting democracy on hold.</p></div> </blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and his text...</p><blockquote><div><p>It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...together to show you how brainwashed you are being?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do I really have to quote both your text...In other words , he 's not calling for putting democracy on hold .
...and his text...It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while .
...together to show you how brainwashed you are being ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do I really have to quote both your text...In other words, he's not calling for putting democracy on hold.
...and his text...It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.
...together to show you how brainwashed you are being?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680882</id>
	<title>No, he has one opinion on his side.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1269958320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plato's opinion is not historical precedent.</p><p>Historical precedent would be an historical record about how Democracy is worst for human development and how other systems are better.</p><p>This is not the case, any way you want to slice it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plato 's opinion is not historical precedent.Historical precedent would be an historical record about how Democracy is worst for human development and how other systems are better.This is not the case , any way you want to slice it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plato's opinion is not historical precedent.Historical precedent would be an historical record about how Democracy is worst for human development and how other systems are better.This is not the case, any way you want to slice it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680800</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>leifb</author>
	<datestamp>1269957900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[quote]as well as saving the huge costs of elections and the corruption of election financing by big corporations[/quote]</p><p>Exactly.  Instead, corporations shift their costs to the back end, by offering jobs to former elected officials who serve them well.</p><p>On second thought, that doesn't sound much better at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ quote ] as well as saving the huge costs of elections and the corruption of election financing by big corporations [ /quote ] Exactly .
Instead , corporations shift their costs to the back end , by offering jobs to former elected officials who serve them well.On second thought , that does n't sound much better at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[quote]as well as saving the huge costs of elections and the corruption of election financing by big corporations[/quote]Exactly.
Instead, corporations shift their costs to the back end, by offering jobs to former elected officials who serve them well.On second thought, that doesn't sound much better at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679764</id>
	<title>Scientist? Yeah, right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269953220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's no scientist if he's relying on data rendered questionable because of blatant disregard for scientific principles.</p><p>East Anglia data, as well as substantial portions of the rest of the World's data being rendered essentially useless is unforgiveable, scientifically (at least). Putting your thermometers near heat sinks makes your data useful for studies of temperatures near heat sinks, not global climate trends.</p><p>Too bad that population centers encroached on the weather stations, but we can't pretend it didn't happen, or that the data from those stations is useful.</p><p>Even more disturbing (well, at least as disturbing) is NASA'a admissions that their climate data is LESS reliable than East Anglia's.</p><p>I am a scientist, and I'll admit that I've screwed up an experiment or two, and couldn't use the generated data. These screw ups with climate monitoring are monumental, though, and are affecting peoples' quality of life, one way or another, around the world.</p><p>Too bad there is INSUFFICIENT SUPPORTABLE SCIENCE to support either side of the argument.</p><p>It's all down to politicians, aka marketing.</p><p>What a waste, at so many levels.</p><p>Molecular Mechanic</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's no scientist if he 's relying on data rendered questionable because of blatant disregard for scientific principles.East Anglia data , as well as substantial portions of the rest of the World 's data being rendered essentially useless is unforgiveable , scientifically ( at least ) .
Putting your thermometers near heat sinks makes your data useful for studies of temperatures near heat sinks , not global climate trends.Too bad that population centers encroached on the weather stations , but we ca n't pretend it did n't happen , or that the data from those stations is useful.Even more disturbing ( well , at least as disturbing ) is NASA'a admissions that their climate data is LESS reliable than East Anglia 's.I am a scientist , and I 'll admit that I 've screwed up an experiment or two , and could n't use the generated data .
These screw ups with climate monitoring are monumental , though , and are affecting peoples ' quality of life , one way or another , around the world.Too bad there is INSUFFICIENT SUPPORTABLE SCIENCE to support either side of the argument.It 's all down to politicians , aka marketing.What a waste , at so many levels.Molecular Mechanic</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's no scientist if he's relying on data rendered questionable because of blatant disregard for scientific principles.East Anglia data, as well as substantial portions of the rest of the World's data being rendered essentially useless is unforgiveable, scientifically (at least).
Putting your thermometers near heat sinks makes your data useful for studies of temperatures near heat sinks, not global climate trends.Too bad that population centers encroached on the weather stations, but we can't pretend it didn't happen, or that the data from those stations is useful.Even more disturbing (well, at least as disturbing) is NASA'a admissions that their climate data is LESS reliable than East Anglia's.I am a scientist, and I'll admit that I've screwed up an experiment or two, and couldn't use the generated data.
These screw ups with climate monitoring are monumental, though, and are affecting peoples' quality of life, one way or another, around the world.Too bad there is INSUFFICIENT SUPPORTABLE SCIENCE to support either side of the argument.It's all down to politicians, aka marketing.What a waste, at so many levels.Molecular Mechanic</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685360</id>
	<title>Democracy is the worst system of government</title>
	<author>EmagGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1270037280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is tyranny of the majority. It is mob rule.</p><p>I am very glad we live in a Republic and not a pure Democracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is tyranny of the majority .
It is mob rule.I am very glad we live in a Republic and not a pure Democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is tyranny of the majority.
It is mob rule.I am very glad we live in a Republic and not a pure Democracy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31689016</id>
	<title>Re:Crackpot</title>
	<author>SleazyRidr</author>
	<datestamp>1270055700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why am I bothering to reply to you, of all the didn't read the article posts here? No idea!</p><p>If you'd read the article, you'd notice that it's a rather cynical piece that says that we're doomed either way, as the present democratic system can't possibly do anything about global climate change. Hence the other comment about sea walls.</p><p>Sorry to get in the way of your hate, I'll step aside now so you can continue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why am I bothering to reply to you , of all the did n't read the article posts here ?
No idea ! If you 'd read the article , you 'd notice that it 's a rather cynical piece that says that we 're doomed either way , as the present democratic system ca n't possibly do anything about global climate change .
Hence the other comment about sea walls.Sorry to get in the way of your hate , I 'll step aside now so you can continue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why am I bothering to reply to you, of all the didn't read the article posts here?
No idea!If you'd read the article, you'd notice that it's a rather cynical piece that says that we're doomed either way, as the present democratic system can't possibly do anything about global climate change.
Hence the other comment about sea walls.Sorry to get in the way of your hate, I'll step aside now so you can continue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679516</id>
	<title>LOL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think so...at the same time, this guy has to be the first environmentalist to speak the truth behind their extremist message: it's about controlling people's lives, and less about the environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think so...at the same time , this guy has to be the first environmentalist to speak the truth behind their extremist message : it 's about controlling people 's lives , and less about the environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think so...at the same time, this guy has to be the first environmentalist to speak the truth behind their extremist message: it's about controlling people's lives, and less about the environment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31684840</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270031820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No need to ban parties.  The only reason they exist is because, with plurality voting, two similar candidates being on a ballot compete with each other for votes, causing them to do more poorly than a less popular candidates.  For example, imagine three candidates, A, B, and C.  A and B are virtually identical, and preferred by 60\% of the population.  Candidate C is much different, and preferred by 40\% of the population.  In the election, the supporters of A &amp; B choose one or the other to vote for, causing each to receive 30\% of the vote, and losing to candidate C who received 40\%.</p><p>Condorcet voting doesn't have this problem.  The only problem Condorcet voting has is that people won't shut the fuck up about "circular ambiguities," giving them the appearance of being a major flaw in the voting method, when in reality, we'd be better off not worrying about them since they're unlikely to occur anyway.  After all, no one worries about what we do when a tie occurs in a plurality election.  Just pick someone at random, since Condorcet is quite easy to understand when people don't complicate the fuck out of it by inventing contrived algorithms bent on extracting a decision from a dataset after the correct algorithm has already told us that there is no decision in that dataset.  It makes as much sense as saying that, when a tie occurs in a plurality election, we should analyze how darkly each voter colored in the circles on their ballot.  When the outcome of an election is that close, any minor preference you can find for a candidate is just as likely to be voter fraud as it is to be any real preference of the electorate.</p><p>So, it's simple, really.  Switch to Condorcet voting, and suddenly, people with similar opinions no longer have to meet before the election in order to choose a single candidate to be on the ballot.  They can all be on the ballot without worsening each other's chances.  Subsequently, there is no reason for parties to form, and they will soon split apart over the tiniest differences until eventually everyone is their own party.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No need to ban parties .
The only reason they exist is because , with plurality voting , two similar candidates being on a ballot compete with each other for votes , causing them to do more poorly than a less popular candidates .
For example , imagine three candidates , A , B , and C. A and B are virtually identical , and preferred by 60 \ % of the population .
Candidate C is much different , and preferred by 40 \ % of the population .
In the election , the supporters of A &amp; B choose one or the other to vote for , causing each to receive 30 \ % of the vote , and losing to candidate C who received 40 \ % .Condorcet voting does n't have this problem .
The only problem Condorcet voting has is that people wo n't shut the fuck up about " circular ambiguities , " giving them the appearance of being a major flaw in the voting method , when in reality , we 'd be better off not worrying about them since they 're unlikely to occur anyway .
After all , no one worries about what we do when a tie occurs in a plurality election .
Just pick someone at random , since Condorcet is quite easy to understand when people do n't complicate the fuck out of it by inventing contrived algorithms bent on extracting a decision from a dataset after the correct algorithm has already told us that there is no decision in that dataset .
It makes as much sense as saying that , when a tie occurs in a plurality election , we should analyze how darkly each voter colored in the circles on their ballot .
When the outcome of an election is that close , any minor preference you can find for a candidate is just as likely to be voter fraud as it is to be any real preference of the electorate.So , it 's simple , really .
Switch to Condorcet voting , and suddenly , people with similar opinions no longer have to meet before the election in order to choose a single candidate to be on the ballot .
They can all be on the ballot without worsening each other 's chances .
Subsequently , there is no reason for parties to form , and they will soon split apart over the tiniest differences until eventually everyone is their own party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No need to ban parties.
The only reason they exist is because, with plurality voting, two similar candidates being on a ballot compete with each other for votes, causing them to do more poorly than a less popular candidates.
For example, imagine three candidates, A, B, and C.  A and B are virtually identical, and preferred by 60\% of the population.
Candidate C is much different, and preferred by 40\% of the population.
In the election, the supporters of A &amp; B choose one or the other to vote for, causing each to receive 30\% of the vote, and losing to candidate C who received 40\%.Condorcet voting doesn't have this problem.
The only problem Condorcet voting has is that people won't shut the fuck up about "circular ambiguities," giving them the appearance of being a major flaw in the voting method, when in reality, we'd be better off not worrying about them since they're unlikely to occur anyway.
After all, no one worries about what we do when a tie occurs in a plurality election.
Just pick someone at random, since Condorcet is quite easy to understand when people don't complicate the fuck out of it by inventing contrived algorithms bent on extracting a decision from a dataset after the correct algorithm has already told us that there is no decision in that dataset.
It makes as much sense as saying that, when a tie occurs in a plurality election, we should analyze how darkly each voter colored in the circles on their ballot.
When the outcome of an election is that close, any minor preference you can find for a candidate is just as likely to be voter fraud as it is to be any real preference of the electorate.So, it's simple, really.
Switch to Condorcet voting, and suddenly, people with similar opinions no longer have to meet before the election in order to choose a single candidate to be on the ballot.
They can all be on the ballot without worsening each other's chances.
Subsequently, there is no reason for parties to form, and they will soon split apart over the tiniest differences until eventually everyone is their own party.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679502</id>
	<title>As an American...</title>
	<author>tool462</author>
	<datestamp>1269952080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like to tell Dr. Lovelock that we're on the motherfucker.  Full democracy shutdown commencing in 3...2...1...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to tell Dr. Lovelock that we 're on the motherfucker .
Full democracy shutdown commencing in 3...2...1.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to tell Dr. Lovelock that we're on the motherfucker.
Full democracy shutdown commencing in 3...2...1...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679788</id>
	<title>Read up on the Eastern Block</title>
	<author>32771</author>
	<datestamp>1269953340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Environmentalism was a secret movement there and people were harassed by the secret police for doing something for the environment. This is exactly what this fool wants with his dreamed up theories. Now you just have to explain to me, i.e. how mining in Russia and Eastern Germany were environmentaly friendly. Not to speak of all the other desasters. He probably also thinks Chernobyl was a good idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Environmentalism was a secret movement there and people were harassed by the secret police for doing something for the environment .
This is exactly what this fool wants with his dreamed up theories .
Now you just have to explain to me , i.e .
how mining in Russia and Eastern Germany were environmentaly friendly .
Not to speak of all the other desasters .
He probably also thinks Chernobyl was a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Environmentalism was a secret movement there and people were harassed by the secret police for doing something for the environment.
This is exactly what this fool wants with his dreamed up theories.
Now you just have to explain to me, i.e.
how mining in Russia and Eastern Germany were environmentaly friendly.
Not to speak of all the other desasters.
He probably also thinks Chernobyl was a good idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31693824</id>
	<title>The best form of government. . .</title>
	<author>Slicebo</author>
	<datestamp>1270032060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that many, if not all, right-thinking people would agree that the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship.</p><p>The problem is that there seems to be a shortage of benevolent dictators.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that many , if not all , right-thinking people would agree that the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship.The problem is that there seems to be a shortage of benevolent dictators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that many, if not all, right-thinking people would agree that the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship.The problem is that there seems to be a shortage of benevolent dictators.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681630</id>
	<title>WARNING! Wildly misquoted in many sources</title>
	<author>tyroneking</author>
	<datestamp>1269962220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lovelock has been wildly misquoted in the media on this and other statements in the last few days.<br>Tuesday morning he was on BBC Radio 4 and faced John Humphries and gave a very good account of himself, correcting some earlier misquotes.<br>He promotes an unpopular agenda (it's too late - let's live with it) so he is the enemy of all sides in the climate change debate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lovelock has been wildly misquoted in the media on this and other statements in the last few days.Tuesday morning he was on BBC Radio 4 and faced John Humphries and gave a very good account of himself , correcting some earlier misquotes.He promotes an unpopular agenda ( it 's too late - let 's live with it ) so he is the enemy of all sides in the climate change debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lovelock has been wildly misquoted in the media on this and other statements in the last few days.Tuesday morning he was on BBC Radio 4 and faced John Humphries and gave a very good account of himself, correcting some earlier misquotes.He promotes an unpopular agenda (it's too late - let's live with it) so he is the enemy of all sides in the climate change debate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31688970</id>
	<title>Re:Which</title>
	<author>SleazyRidr</author>
	<datestamp>1270055520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is everyone's fault but mine!</p><p><a href="http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/03/the-overpopulation-myth/" title="prospectmagazine.co.uk">http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/03/the-overpopulation-myth/</a> [prospectmagazine.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is everyone 's fault but mine ! http : //www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/03/the-overpopulation-myth/ [ prospectmagazine.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is everyone's fault but mine!http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2010/03/the-overpopulation-myth/ [prospectmagazine.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679840</id>
	<title>The real point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269953580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the real point is nothing will be done until we stop the endless debate about whether it's happening and the cause. First I hear it isn't happening then I hear we can't be the cause. Most of the people doubting it seem to be reacting to what is happening in the center and southern parts of the country this winter. Oddly enough global warming already predicted more snow and rainfall. Heat causes more atmospheric moisture, climate 101. Check out the northern part of the country up to the north pole. We've had massive change. I live in central Maine and our winter was 2 months long instead of the usual 5 or 6 months. There's no snow left and they are talking 70+ weather for the weekend. That's insane for early April. New York up through southern Maine is getting hammered with rain and some areas are already talking once in a 100 year flooding. How many times in the last 10 years have I heard once in a 100 years used when talking about weather? We don't need to suspend democracy we need to get on the same page. I've seen snow on the ground through May and this year it was mostly gone by mid March. We've got to stop predicting global warming by sticking our fingers out the window. It's a worldwide issue and your local weather has nothing to do with what's happening in the other 99.99\% of the globe. The one problem with democracy is if 51\% of the country is dead wrong about climate change then the other 49\% have to suffer for their mistake. No serious academic is debating warming and very few are debating we are the cause. If you really want to be democratic about it believe the vast majority of the researchers in climate that are saying we are causing it and we'd better change our ways. If you want to follow the majority they are the majority.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the real point is nothing will be done until we stop the endless debate about whether it 's happening and the cause .
First I hear it is n't happening then I hear we ca n't be the cause .
Most of the people doubting it seem to be reacting to what is happening in the center and southern parts of the country this winter .
Oddly enough global warming already predicted more snow and rainfall .
Heat causes more atmospheric moisture , climate 101 .
Check out the northern part of the country up to the north pole .
We 've had massive change .
I live in central Maine and our winter was 2 months long instead of the usual 5 or 6 months .
There 's no snow left and they are talking 70 + weather for the weekend .
That 's insane for early April .
New York up through southern Maine is getting hammered with rain and some areas are already talking once in a 100 year flooding .
How many times in the last 10 years have I heard once in a 100 years used when talking about weather ?
We do n't need to suspend democracy we need to get on the same page .
I 've seen snow on the ground through May and this year it was mostly gone by mid March .
We 've got to stop predicting global warming by sticking our fingers out the window .
It 's a worldwide issue and your local weather has nothing to do with what 's happening in the other 99.99 \ % of the globe .
The one problem with democracy is if 51 \ % of the country is dead wrong about climate change then the other 49 \ % have to suffer for their mistake .
No serious academic is debating warming and very few are debating we are the cause .
If you really want to be democratic about it believe the vast majority of the researchers in climate that are saying we are causing it and we 'd better change our ways .
If you want to follow the majority they are the majority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the real point is nothing will be done until we stop the endless debate about whether it's happening and the cause.
First I hear it isn't happening then I hear we can't be the cause.
Most of the people doubting it seem to be reacting to what is happening in the center and southern parts of the country this winter.
Oddly enough global warming already predicted more snow and rainfall.
Heat causes more atmospheric moisture, climate 101.
Check out the northern part of the country up to the north pole.
We've had massive change.
I live in central Maine and our winter was 2 months long instead of the usual 5 or 6 months.
There's no snow left and they are talking 70+ weather for the weekend.
That's insane for early April.
New York up through southern Maine is getting hammered with rain and some areas are already talking once in a 100 year flooding.
How many times in the last 10 years have I heard once in a 100 years used when talking about weather?
We don't need to suspend democracy we need to get on the same page.
I've seen snow on the ground through May and this year it was mostly gone by mid March.
We've got to stop predicting global warming by sticking our fingers out the window.
It's a worldwide issue and your local weather has nothing to do with what's happening in the other 99.99\% of the globe.
The one problem with democracy is if 51\% of the country is dead wrong about climate change then the other 49\% have to suffer for their mistake.
No serious academic is debating warming and very few are debating we are the cause.
If you really want to be democratic about it believe the vast majority of the researchers in climate that are saying we are causing it and we'd better change our ways.
If you want to follow the majority they are the majority.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679706</id>
	<title>Re:LOL</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1269952980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it's obviously more about the environment.  He wouldn't care about controlling your life but for that.</p><p>Of course it's still a retarded way to "solve" the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's obviously more about the environment .
He would n't care about controlling your life but for that.Of course it 's still a retarded way to " solve " the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's obviously more about the environment.
He wouldn't care about controlling your life but for that.Of course it's still a retarded way to "solve" the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31688928</id>
	<title>What ???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270055340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where has this clown been for the last nine years ?  Democracy has pretty much BEEN suspended in the name of security and electronic voting machines !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where has this clown been for the last nine years ?
Democracy has pretty much BEEN suspended in the name of security and electronic voting machines !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where has this clown been for the last nine years ?
Democracy has pretty much BEEN suspended in the name of security and electronic voting machines !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679626</id>
	<title>fragile species</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1269952620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As George Carlin "nicely" puts it, the planet will eventually adapt. It's the humans who have the most to lose from warming and pollution. If we all vote to @#\%$! ourselves, then perhaps that's fate. (Not sure dictators care either.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As George Carlin " nicely " puts it , the planet will eventually adapt .
It 's the humans who have the most to lose from warming and pollution .
If we all vote to @ # \ % $ !
ourselves , then perhaps that 's fate .
( Not sure dictators care either .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As George Carlin "nicely" puts it, the planet will eventually adapt.
It's the humans who have the most to lose from warming and pollution.
If we all vote to @#\%$!
ourselves, then perhaps that's fate.
(Not sure dictators care either.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680528</id>
	<title>problems</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1269956460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. "the media" is not some sort of monolithic controlled source at the helm of control. its thousands of disparate voices. our posts on slashdot is "the media". slashdot is "the media". there is right wing media, there is left wing media. there is media for whatever audience you can imagine, each with its own stories, prejudices, and agendas, in constant flux, and controlled by no one. in other words: the media decides nothing. there is no logical coherence to even speak of "the media", as if it were any sort of coherent identity to speak of in such a way to draw any sort of valid statement</p><p>2. parties are inevitable. we are social creatures, and in fact our most social effort is politics itself. in other words, its impossibe to have politics without parties. we naturally evolve into factions and groups. so political parties will be with us forever, make peace with that fact. at best you simply drive parties underground, or rename them as something else: pointless</p><p>3. the democrats and republicans are different. tell me with a straight face al gore would have invaded iraq. the point is, the two parties seem the same because they fight over support from the middle, so they are always drawing close to each other, in the middle. which is actually wonderful: it provides stability by ensuring the party in control never drifts too far left or right from the center of opinion: they lose control if they do. furthermore, truly far left or far right parties will never gain control as long as you have democrats and republicans, because they simply don't appeal to enough people. which again, is wonderful: protection from extremism. another thing: when you vote, your choice is NEVER going to be ideologically your ideal. it will always be slightly closer to me, or slightly further from me. you ALWAYS vote strategic, not idealistic. there never, ever, in a healthy democracy, be some sort of dream where your ideal further left/ further right candidate will win, nor should it ever be so, if the true purpose of democracy: give voice to the people it si formed from, is ever to remain valid. so you always get a choice between slightly left, or slightly right, seemingly the same, and this is something you should celebrate: stability and legitimacy and permanently banished extremism</p><p>4. political parties are a DEFENSE from corporate influence. without political parties to filter corporate interests, ie, without the independent power centers the parties represent, there is nothing to prevent direct control of individual politicians by corporations, to shop for individual politicians carte blanche. and all alone and without support, there is no choice for those individual politicians, if they want to succeed, to be nothing but a puppet for their corporate backers (or the money dries up). so if you want a true corporatocracy, you will abolish political parties. in fact, the recent supreme court ruling allowing more corporate money (an obscene decision) in elections is a direct threat to the power of political parties (so hopefully, since they know their power is threatened, the supreme's moronic decision will be legislatively annulled by the parties). of course, the ideal is to do away with all corporate influence in a democracy. so if you really want to do that, the best way to do that, is to work the independent power centers: the political parties</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
" the media " is not some sort of monolithic controlled source at the helm of control .
its thousands of disparate voices .
our posts on slashdot is " the media " .
slashdot is " the media " .
there is right wing media , there is left wing media .
there is media for whatever audience you can imagine , each with its own stories , prejudices , and agendas , in constant flux , and controlled by no one .
in other words : the media decides nothing .
there is no logical coherence to even speak of " the media " , as if it were any sort of coherent identity to speak of in such a way to draw any sort of valid statement2 .
parties are inevitable .
we are social creatures , and in fact our most social effort is politics itself .
in other words , its impossibe to have politics without parties .
we naturally evolve into factions and groups .
so political parties will be with us forever , make peace with that fact .
at best you simply drive parties underground , or rename them as something else : pointless3 .
the democrats and republicans are different .
tell me with a straight face al gore would have invaded iraq .
the point is , the two parties seem the same because they fight over support from the middle , so they are always drawing close to each other , in the middle .
which is actually wonderful : it provides stability by ensuring the party in control never drifts too far left or right from the center of opinion : they lose control if they do .
furthermore , truly far left or far right parties will never gain control as long as you have democrats and republicans , because they simply do n't appeal to enough people .
which again , is wonderful : protection from extremism .
another thing : when you vote , your choice is NEVER going to be ideologically your ideal .
it will always be slightly closer to me , or slightly further from me .
you ALWAYS vote strategic , not idealistic .
there never , ever , in a healthy democracy , be some sort of dream where your ideal further left/ further right candidate will win , nor should it ever be so , if the true purpose of democracy : give voice to the people it si formed from , is ever to remain valid .
so you always get a choice between slightly left , or slightly right , seemingly the same , and this is something you should celebrate : stability and legitimacy and permanently banished extremism4 .
political parties are a DEFENSE from corporate influence .
without political parties to filter corporate interests , ie , without the independent power centers the parties represent , there is nothing to prevent direct control of individual politicians by corporations , to shop for individual politicians carte blanche .
and all alone and without support , there is no choice for those individual politicians , if they want to succeed , to be nothing but a puppet for their corporate backers ( or the money dries up ) .
so if you want a true corporatocracy , you will abolish political parties .
in fact , the recent supreme court ruling allowing more corporate money ( an obscene decision ) in elections is a direct threat to the power of political parties ( so hopefully , since they know their power is threatened , the supreme 's moronic decision will be legislatively annulled by the parties ) .
of course , the ideal is to do away with all corporate influence in a democracy .
so if you really want to do that , the best way to do that , is to work the independent power centers : the political parties</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
"the media" is not some sort of monolithic controlled source at the helm of control.
its thousands of disparate voices.
our posts on slashdot is "the media".
slashdot is "the media".
there is right wing media, there is left wing media.
there is media for whatever audience you can imagine, each with its own stories, prejudices, and agendas, in constant flux, and controlled by no one.
in other words: the media decides nothing.
there is no logical coherence to even speak of "the media", as if it were any sort of coherent identity to speak of in such a way to draw any sort of valid statement2.
parties are inevitable.
we are social creatures, and in fact our most social effort is politics itself.
in other words, its impossibe to have politics without parties.
we naturally evolve into factions and groups.
so political parties will be with us forever, make peace with that fact.
at best you simply drive parties underground, or rename them as something else: pointless3.
the democrats and republicans are different.
tell me with a straight face al gore would have invaded iraq.
the point is, the two parties seem the same because they fight over support from the middle, so they are always drawing close to each other, in the middle.
which is actually wonderful: it provides stability by ensuring the party in control never drifts too far left or right from the center of opinion: they lose control if they do.
furthermore, truly far left or far right parties will never gain control as long as you have democrats and republicans, because they simply don't appeal to enough people.
which again, is wonderful: protection from extremism.
another thing: when you vote, your choice is NEVER going to be ideologically your ideal.
it will always be slightly closer to me, or slightly further from me.
you ALWAYS vote strategic, not idealistic.
there never, ever, in a healthy democracy, be some sort of dream where your ideal further left/ further right candidate will win, nor should it ever be so, if the true purpose of democracy: give voice to the people it si formed from, is ever to remain valid.
so you always get a choice between slightly left, or slightly right, seemingly the same, and this is something you should celebrate: stability and legitimacy and permanently banished extremism4.
political parties are a DEFENSE from corporate influence.
without political parties to filter corporate interests, ie, without the independent power centers the parties represent, there is nothing to prevent direct control of individual politicians by corporations, to shop for individual politicians carte blanche.
and all alone and without support, there is no choice for those individual politicians, if they want to succeed, to be nothing but a puppet for their corporate backers (or the money dries up).
so if you want a true corporatocracy, you will abolish political parties.
in fact, the recent supreme court ruling allowing more corporate money (an obscene decision) in elections is a direct threat to the power of political parties (so hopefully, since they know their power is threatened, the supreme's moronic decision will be legislatively annulled by the parties).
of course, the ideal is to do away with all corporate influence in a democracy.
so if you really want to do that, the best way to do that, is to work the independent power centers: the political parties</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679636</id>
	<title>A quote by Samuel L. Jackson</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"English, motha****er -- Do you speak it?"</p><p>Seriously<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...   has it come to this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" English , motha * * * * er -- Do you speak it ?
" Seriously / .
... has it come to this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"English, motha****er -- Do you speak it?
"Seriously /.
...   has it come to this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685494</id>
	<title>Yeah, that'll work.</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1270038480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because <a href="http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/49038/richard-n-cooper/troubled-lands-the-legacy-of-soviet-environmental-destruction" title="foreignaffairs.com">totalitarian governments</a> [foreignaffairs.com] <a href="http://matadorchange.com/10-environmental-atrocities-in-china-that-you-didnt-know-about" title="matadorchange.com">have such a good record</a> [matadorchange.com] <a href="http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1014-burma.html" title="mongabay.com">in environmental matters.</a> [mongabay.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because totalitarian governments [ foreignaffairs.com ] have such a good record [ matadorchange.com ] in environmental matters .
[ mongabay.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because totalitarian governments [foreignaffairs.com] have such a good record [matadorchange.com] in environmental matters.
[mongabay.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679950</id>
	<title>Oh Great!</title>
	<author>srobert</author>
	<datestamp>1269954180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure I agree that we may be circling the drain waiting for a democratically acceptable solution to the problem. But claiming that <i>democracy should be suspended while intelligent people set about saving the rest of us</i> is just the sort of thing that has the tea bag party threatening to revolt. Last weekend they kicked it off in Searchlight, NV, and one of their rants is that <i>global warming is part of a plot to eliminate American sovereignty</i>. Now after sensible people tried to assure them that this isn't so, this egghead pops up with all this elitist crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure I agree that we may be circling the drain waiting for a democratically acceptable solution to the problem .
But claiming that democracy should be suspended while intelligent people set about saving the rest of us is just the sort of thing that has the tea bag party threatening to revolt .
Last weekend they kicked it off in Searchlight , NV , and one of their rants is that global warming is part of a plot to eliminate American sovereignty .
Now after sensible people tried to assure them that this is n't so , this egghead pops up with all this elitist crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure I agree that we may be circling the drain waiting for a democratically acceptable solution to the problem.
But claiming that democracy should be suspended while intelligent people set about saving the rest of us is just the sort of thing that has the tea bag party threatening to revolt.
Last weekend they kicked it off in Searchlight, NV, and one of their rants is that global warming is part of a plot to eliminate American sovereignty.
Now after sensible people tried to assure them that this isn't so, this egghead pops up with all this elitist crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31683326</id>
	<title>Re:LOL</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1269974280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think so...at the same time, this guy has to be the first environmentalist to speak the truth behind their extremist message: it's about controlling people's lives, and less about the environment.</p></div><p>Well, I'm an environmentalist, and for starters, I don't have an "extremist message," and my reason for being an environmentalist is not to control people's lives, but to preserve our natural environment, and in turn, lead to a higher quality of life for the world's people.</p><p>So, in short, you're wrong. Yes, there are extremists that will exploit any social issue for power or control, but if you think mainstream environmentalism is about controlling people's lives, you are very ignorant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think so...at the same time , this guy has to be the first environmentalist to speak the truth behind their extremist message : it 's about controlling people 's lives , and less about the environment.Well , I 'm an environmentalist , and for starters , I do n't have an " extremist message , " and my reason for being an environmentalist is not to control people 's lives , but to preserve our natural environment , and in turn , lead to a higher quality of life for the world 's people.So , in short , you 're wrong .
Yes , there are extremists that will exploit any social issue for power or control , but if you think mainstream environmentalism is about controlling people 's lives , you are very ignorant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think so...at the same time, this guy has to be the first environmentalist to speak the truth behind their extremist message: it's about controlling people's lives, and less about the environment.Well, I'm an environmentalist, and for starters, I don't have an "extremist message," and my reason for being an environmentalist is not to control people's lives, but to preserve our natural environment, and in turn, lead to a higher quality of life for the world's people.So, in short, you're wrong.
Yes, there are extremists that will exploit any social issue for power or control, but if you think mainstream environmentalism is about controlling people's lives, you are very ignorant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680672</id>
	<title>I say we suspend</title>
	<author>night\_flyer</author>
	<datestamp>1269957120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>gov't financing of scientists</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>gov't financing of scientists</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gov't financing of scientists</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31683674</id>
	<title>Great pay-per-view event</title>
	<author>Torodung</author>
	<datestamp>1269977760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and then the scientist lost his mind.</p><p>I'd like to put this guy in a steel cage with Ron Paul and see what shakes loose.</p><p>--<br>Toro</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and then the scientist lost his mind.I 'd like to put this guy in a steel cage with Ron Paul and see what shakes loose.--Toro</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and then the scientist lost his mind.I'd like to put this guy in a steel cage with Ron Paul and see what shakes loose.--Toro</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679974</id>
	<title>Re:He's got historical precedent on his side</title>
	<author>caitsith01</author>
	<datestamp>1269954240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In terms of practical historical precedent, not so much. This sort of thing tends to end badly. </p></div><p>While I don't disagree, it's interesting to look at the example of Britain in World War Two.  In effect, the major parties all banded together to form a single wartime government, thereby suspending true democracy for the greater good.  However, in 1945 Labour immediately left the coalition and contested the general election in opposition to the government.</p><p>I think the point this guy is trying to make is that in the face of a sufficiently serious threat, partisan differences become an impediment to effective action.  He might have done better to suggest that political parties need to overcome their differences and regard climate change and the need for a response to it as a settled, undeniable fact rather than a field for political dispute and point-scoring.  But that would have got him fewer headlines.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In terms of practical historical precedent , not so much .
This sort of thing tends to end badly .
While I do n't disagree , it 's interesting to look at the example of Britain in World War Two .
In effect , the major parties all banded together to form a single wartime government , thereby suspending true democracy for the greater good .
However , in 1945 Labour immediately left the coalition and contested the general election in opposition to the government.I think the point this guy is trying to make is that in the face of a sufficiently serious threat , partisan differences become an impediment to effective action .
He might have done better to suggest that political parties need to overcome their differences and regard climate change and the need for a response to it as a settled , undeniable fact rather than a field for political dispute and point-scoring .
But that would have got him fewer headlines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In terms of practical historical precedent, not so much.
This sort of thing tends to end badly.
While I don't disagree, it's interesting to look at the example of Britain in World War Two.
In effect, the major parties all banded together to form a single wartime government, thereby suspending true democracy for the greater good.
However, in 1945 Labour immediately left the coalition and contested the general election in opposition to the government.I think the point this guy is trying to make is that in the face of a sufficiently serious threat, partisan differences become an impediment to effective action.
He might have done better to suggest that political parties need to overcome their differences and regard climate change and the need for a response to it as a settled, undeniable fact rather than a field for political dispute and point-scoring.
But that would have got him fewer headlines.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681052</id>
	<title>Re:He's got historical precedent on his side</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1269959220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the general population is really so dumb, it should be no problem for the intelligent people to trick them into giving them the power.  Right?  Think about that, man.  Or maybe those 'intelligent' people aren't as great as they think......</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the general population is really so dumb , it should be no problem for the intelligent people to trick them into giving them the power .
Right ? Think about that , man .
Or maybe those 'intelligent ' people are n't as great as they think..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the general population is really so dumb, it should be no problem for the intelligent people to trick them into giving them the power.
Right?  Think about that, man.
Or maybe those 'intelligent' people aren't as great as they think......</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679578</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680196</id>
	<title>Hidden Agenda</title>
	<author>knowthetruth</author>
	<datestamp>1269955140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you really want to know more on the hidden agenda of such issue, please do a search of "Lovelock" and "Gala" at this site:
<a href="http://www.crossroad.to/text/search.html" title="crossroad.to" rel="nofollow">http://www.crossroad.to/text/search.html</a> [crossroad.to]</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you really want to know more on the hidden agenda of such issue , please do a search of " Lovelock " and " Gala " at this site : http : //www.crossroad.to/text/search.html [ crossroad.to ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you really want to know more on the hidden agenda of such issue, please do a search of "Lovelock" and "Gala" at this site:
http://www.crossroad.to/text/search.html [crossroad.to]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681542</id>
	<title>Out of context</title>
	<author>WeatherGod</author>
	<datestamp>1269961620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While the guy is very much  an elitist, the article is rather selective in its quoting.<p><div class="quote"><p>But it can't happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What's the alternative to democracy? There isn't one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.</p></div><p>He isn't calling for the "hold on democracy", he is saying that because the bickering over what to do about climate change has no end in sight, that people won't do anything about it until it is too late.  By then, drastic measures will be needed.  Unfortunately, there is plenty of precedence for this course of action.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While the guy is very much an elitist , the article is rather selective in its quoting.But it ca n't happen in a modern democracy .
This is one of the problems .
What 's the alternative to democracy ?
There is n't one .
But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches , democracy must be put on hold for the time being .
I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war .
It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.He is n't calling for the " hold on democracy " , he is saying that because the bickering over what to do about climate change has no end in sight , that people wo n't do anything about it until it is too late .
By then , drastic measures will be needed .
Unfortunately , there is plenty of precedence for this course of action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the guy is very much  an elitist, the article is rather selective in its quoting.But it can't happen in a modern democracy.
This is one of the problems.
What's the alternative to democracy?
There isn't one.
But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being.
I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war.
It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.He isn't calling for the "hold on democracy", he is saying that because the bickering over what to do about climate change has no end in sight, that people won't do anything about it until it is too late.
By then, drastic measures will be needed.
Unfortunately, there is plenty of precedence for this course of action.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31689560</id>
	<title>a democracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270058100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we are not intended to be a democracy<br>Watch: http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/<br>and to the republic for which it stands<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we are not intended to be a democracyWatch : http : //www.wimp.com/thegovernment/and to the republic for which it stands ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we are not intended to be a democracyWatch: http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/and to the republic for which it stands ....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680004</id>
	<title>kind of hard to suspend democracy...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269954360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when you've already sold it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when you 've already sold it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when you've already sold it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681006</id>
	<title>Not exactly what he said...</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1269958980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm no big enviro fan, for sure, but I think the article summary takes what he's talking about completely out of context.  I think the point he was making was that humans, as a group, are not making what he feels to be good decisions.  He's not advocating an overthrow of democracy per se as much as he is just decrying that in a democracy radical change is just slow. It's a nuanced position, not a radical one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm no big enviro fan , for sure , but I think the article summary takes what he 's talking about completely out of context .
I think the point he was making was that humans , as a group , are not making what he feels to be good decisions .
He 's not advocating an overthrow of democracy per se as much as he is just decrying that in a democracy radical change is just slow .
It 's a nuanced position , not a radical one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm no big enviro fan, for sure, but I think the article summary takes what he's talking about completely out of context.
I think the point he was making was that humans, as a group, are not making what he feels to be good decisions.
He's not advocating an overthrow of democracy per se as much as he is just decrying that in a democracy radical change is just slow.
It's a nuanced position, not a radical one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31693188</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1270029060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not two party; there were five parties on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical chance at winning the White House last electiion, if only the media had reported on it. Furthermore, nothing in the Constitution supports your claim that it's a two party system, even though historically there have only been two major parties.</p><p>It was set up as a republic with democratically elected representatives. However, with the corporate monied interest owning the media and financing elections, it has become a plutocracy disguised as democracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not two party ; there were five parties on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical chance at winning the White House last electiion , if only the media had reported on it .
Furthermore , nothing in the Constitution supports your claim that it 's a two party system , even though historically there have only been two major parties.It was set up as a republic with democratically elected representatives .
However , with the corporate monied interest owning the media and financing elections , it has become a plutocracy disguised as democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not two party; there were five parties on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical chance at winning the White House last electiion, if only the media had reported on it.
Furthermore, nothing in the Constitution supports your claim that it's a two party system, even though historically there have only been two major parties.It was set up as a republic with democratically elected representatives.
However, with the corporate monied interest owning the media and financing elections, it has become a plutocracy disguised as democracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681566</id>
	<title>Intellectuals, scientists, and scholars ...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1269961740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... like Mr. Lovelock had better think twice about the welfare of himself and his ilk when the
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph\_Stalin" title="wikipedia.org">freedoms</a> [wikipedia.org]
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer\_Rouge" title="wikipedia.org">protected</a> [wikipedia.org] by democracy are
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural\_Revolution" title="wikipedia.org">no longer guaranteed</a> [wikipedia.org]. If he's lucks, he'll just end up with a job on a nice little <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag" title="wikipedia.org">farm</a> [wikipedia.org] somewhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... like Mr. Lovelock had better think twice about the welfare of himself and his ilk when the freedoms [ wikipedia.org ] protected [ wikipedia.org ] by democracy are no longer guaranteed [ wikipedia.org ] .
If he 's lucks , he 'll just end up with a job on a nice little farm [ wikipedia.org ] somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... like Mr. Lovelock had better think twice about the welfare of himself and his ilk when the
freedoms [wikipedia.org]
protected [wikipedia.org] by democracy are
no longer guaranteed [wikipedia.org].
If he's lucks, he'll just end up with a job on a nice little farm [wikipedia.org] somewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31688932</id>
	<title>Re:Let's go to the videotape</title>
	<author>SleazyRidr</author>
	<datestamp>1270055400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I cannot possibly mod you high enough. A 'story' clearly posted to generate hate does exactly that and has people calling for imprisonment (probably death, but I didn't see that) of some bloke.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can not possibly mod you high enough .
A 'story ' clearly posted to generate hate does exactly that and has people calling for imprisonment ( probably death , but I did n't see that ) of some bloke .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cannot possibly mod you high enough.
A 'story' clearly posted to generate hate does exactly that and has people calling for imprisonment (probably death, but I didn't see that) of some bloke.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31683958</id>
	<title>Best way to implement this plan</title>
	<author>Alcoholic Synonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270066680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We really must take action now. Lets go ahead and take a vote to suspend democracy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We really must take action now .
Lets go ahead and take a vote to suspend democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We really must take action now.
Lets go ahead and take a vote to suspend democracy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680874</id>
	<title>Fuck this guy and fuck his stupid idea.</title>
	<author>Lord Kano</author>
	<datestamp>1269958260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. " - William Pitt</p><p>LK</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom .
It is the argument of tyrants ; it is the creed of slaves .
" - William PittLK</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
" - William PittLK</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31691782</id>
	<title>I'd rather put the effort into science like this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270067040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe get this Liquid Salt Thorium Reactor sorted or something else first and then migrate to it.</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8&amp;feature=channel</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe get this Liquid Salt Thorium Reactor sorted or something else first and then migrate to it.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = AZR0UKxNPh8&amp;feature = channel</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe get this Liquid Salt Thorium Reactor sorted or something else first and then migrate to it.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8&amp;feature=channel</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681636</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>Danathar</author>
	<datestamp>1269962220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually we have Mercantile Corporatism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually we have Mercantile Corporatism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually we have Mercantile Corporatism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681348</id>
	<title>Quitting the goverment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269960600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got a semi-relevant question.</p><p>Is it possible to "quit" being a citizen in a country?<br>If I don't want to live by my countrys rules and regulations and do what they say and demand, would it, somehow, be possible?<br>It Would be nice to be able to quit this goverment-forced life, wich I did not choose (when I became of age to choose/vote on things?) and not taking part of their life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got a semi-relevant question.Is it possible to " quit " being a citizen in a country ? If I do n't want to live by my countrys rules and regulations and do what they say and demand , would it , somehow , be possible ? It Would be nice to be able to quit this goverment-forced life , wich I did not choose ( when I became of age to choose/vote on things ?
) and not taking part of their life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got a semi-relevant question.Is it possible to "quit" being a citizen in a country?If I don't want to live by my countrys rules and regulations and do what they say and demand, would it, somehow, be possible?It Would be nice to be able to quit this goverment-forced life, wich I did not choose (when I became of age to choose/vote on things?
) and not taking part of their life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680978</id>
	<title>He's boughht into Hansonism</title>
	<author>Ralph Spoilsport</author>
	<datestamp>1269958860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Go <a href="http://www.dieoff.org/" title="dieoff.org">here</a> [dieoff.org] for details.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go here [ dieoff.org ] for details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go here [dieoff.org] for details.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680726</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269957540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whether or not a country is a republic is unrelated to whether or not it is a democracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether or not a country is a republic is unrelated to whether or not it is a democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether or not a country is a republic is unrelated to whether or not it is a democracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679832</id>
	<title>What kind of fantasy world does he live in?</title>
	<author>Securityemo</author>
	<datestamp>1269953520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I agree that democracy isn't the ideal form of government, fascism will not really work while humans are in charge, as humans are. That would take a Deus-Ex-like "philosopher king" scenario with either transhuman rulers/subjects or hard AI or both. Alternatively, the second coming might work to the same effect... Anyone here have any spare nukes and don't mind spending the rest of eternity in a lake of fire? I don't really mock him, though, he seems to be in favor of nuclear power and he doesn't really come off as a total crackpot. And haven't everyone here felt that they really are "surrounded by fools", and that those running the country should at least be better people than themselves? Seeing decision-makers bicker like little children and express racist, egotistic and sexist comments when they think they aren't recorded is really depressing.

It sounds to him that he expects that he (and his buddies, perhaps) should just be able to walk up to congress and dictate how things are done. Even if one does subscribe to the idea that the educated elite should make the decisions, with people that are competent in a field making the decisions relevant to their knowledge, actually doing things that way would lead to revolt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree that democracy is n't the ideal form of government , fascism will not really work while humans are in charge , as humans are .
That would take a Deus-Ex-like " philosopher king " scenario with either transhuman rulers/subjects or hard AI or both .
Alternatively , the second coming might work to the same effect... Anyone here have any spare nukes and do n't mind spending the rest of eternity in a lake of fire ?
I do n't really mock him , though , he seems to be in favor of nuclear power and he does n't really come off as a total crackpot .
And have n't everyone here felt that they really are " surrounded by fools " , and that those running the country should at least be better people than themselves ?
Seeing decision-makers bicker like little children and express racist , egotistic and sexist comments when they think they are n't recorded is really depressing .
It sounds to him that he expects that he ( and his buddies , perhaps ) should just be able to walk up to congress and dictate how things are done .
Even if one does subscribe to the idea that the educated elite should make the decisions , with people that are competent in a field making the decisions relevant to their knowledge , actually doing things that way would lead to revolt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree that democracy isn't the ideal form of government, fascism will not really work while humans are in charge, as humans are.
That would take a Deus-Ex-like "philosopher king" scenario with either transhuman rulers/subjects or hard AI or both.
Alternatively, the second coming might work to the same effect... Anyone here have any spare nukes and don't mind spending the rest of eternity in a lake of fire?
I don't really mock him, though, he seems to be in favor of nuclear power and he doesn't really come off as a total crackpot.
And haven't everyone here felt that they really are "surrounded by fools", and that those running the country should at least be better people than themselves?
Seeing decision-makers bicker like little children and express racist, egotistic and sexist comments when they think they aren't recorded is really depressing.
It sounds to him that he expects that he (and his buddies, perhaps) should just be able to walk up to congress and dictate how things are done.
Even if one does subscribe to the idea that the educated elite should make the decisions, with people that are competent in a field making the decisions relevant to their knowledge, actually doing things that way would lead to revolt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680246</id>
	<title>James Lovelock, Please Stop The Environmentalists</title>
	<author>Black Gold Alchemist</author>
	<datestamp>1269955320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We all know who is really responsible for most CO2 emissions: greenpeace and other antinuclear groups. Please ask China how much nuclear power costs when you strip off the red green tape. The answer is that it is cheaper than gas, coal, oil, solar, wind, and basically everything except hydroelectric power. So, please stop the environmentalists, and start the building.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know who is really responsible for most CO2 emissions : greenpeace and other antinuclear groups .
Please ask China how much nuclear power costs when you strip off the red green tape .
The answer is that it is cheaper than gas , coal , oil , solar , wind , and basically everything except hydroelectric power .
So , please stop the environmentalists , and start the building .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know who is really responsible for most CO2 emissions: greenpeace and other antinuclear groups.
Please ask China how much nuclear power costs when you strip off the red green tape.
The answer is that it is cheaper than gas, coal, oil, solar, wind, and basically everything except hydroelectric power.
So, please stop the environmentalists, and start the building.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680312</id>
	<title>Are we really worth saving?</title>
	<author>thatisscary</author>
	<datestamp>1269955620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I don't think we're yet evolved to the point where we're clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change," said Lovelock in his first in-depth interview since the theft of the UEA emails last November. "The inertia of humans is so huge that you can't really do anything meaningful." --

Well if we aren't clever enough to handle it, we will perish.  So what.  Another extinct life form.

Since Lovelock will be dead in 10 years or so, he has nothing to fear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I do n't think we 're yet evolved to the point where we 're clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change , " said Lovelock in his first in-depth interview since the theft of the UEA emails last November .
" The inertia of humans is so huge that you ca n't really do anything meaningful .
" -- Well if we are n't clever enough to handle it , we will perish .
So what .
Another extinct life form .
Since Lovelock will be dead in 10 years or so , he has nothing to fear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I don't think we're yet evolved to the point where we're clever enough to handle a complex a situation as climate change," said Lovelock in his first in-depth interview since the theft of the UEA emails last November.
"The inertia of humans is so huge that you can't really do anything meaningful.
" --

Well if we aren't clever enough to handle it, we will perish.
So what.
Another extinct life form.
Since Lovelock will be dead in 10 years or so, he has nothing to fear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31684616</id>
	<title>First they came for the coal-fired power plants...</title>
	<author>Dr. Crash</author>
	<datestamp>1270029840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my opinion, if humanity cannot survive with democracy, then we do not deserve to survive.</p><p>Proof: survival with democracy indicates a stable system- any one person (or relatively small<br>group) could get "hit by a bus" and no significant change occurs.</p><p>However, in a dictatorship, the life / death / fortune of the dictator has total impact<br>and nobody else has impact; hence the system is unstable.  Can't happen, you say?  Go<br>netflix "Valkyrie" (the bomb assassination of Hitler); it's pretty much a true story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my opinion , if humanity can not survive with democracy , then we do not deserve to survive.Proof : survival with democracy indicates a stable system- any one person ( or relatively smallgroup ) could get " hit by a bus " and no significant change occurs.However , in a dictatorship , the life / death / fortune of the dictator has total impactand nobody else has impact ; hence the system is unstable .
Ca n't happen , you say ?
Gonetflix " Valkyrie " ( the bomb assassination of Hitler ) ; it 's pretty much a true story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my opinion, if humanity cannot survive with democracy, then we do not deserve to survive.Proof: survival with democracy indicates a stable system- any one person (or relatively smallgroup) could get "hit by a bus" and no significant change occurs.However, in a dictatorship, the life / death / fortune of the dictator has total impactand nobody else has impact; hence the system is unstable.
Can't happen, you say?
Gonetflix "Valkyrie" (the bomb assassination of Hitler); it's pretty much a true story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31684116</id>
	<title>Re:Crackpot</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1270068420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This guy has lost the plot. First nuclear power as a way to save the planet. Now 'putting democracy on hold' to achieve the same goal.</p></div><p>Other than you, he has the background to back it up.</p><p>The actual operating problem with nuclear is that the attempt to get out of nuclear power was entirely botched, from the get-go, and very likely due to commercial lobbying. The plants that we have now are old plants. That means two things: One, they are dangerous and two they are incredibly profitable.</p><p>Getting out of nuclear by not allowing new plants to be built was an incredibly dumb idea, and leaves us in the situation we have now, where many countries are discussing keeping the existing plants online for even longer, while not allowing new ones to be built. We're talking about old plants that, according to their original design specs, should already have been shut down.</p><p><b>That</b> is playing with fire a lot more than building a couple new and safer plants. The problem is that emotionally, people don't understand risk. The only risks we understand on an intuitive level are those our brains are wired up for, which largely means immediate physical threats.</p><p>Frankly, based on all the information I have gathered, I would <b>gladly</b> replace all the fossil power generation with nuclear right away, if it were my decision to make. Yes, there is risk involved. However, if you just do the math in your head, you'll have to agree that the risk of a nuclear meltdown <b>in a modern reactor</b>, not a Chernobyl one from the 70s, multiplied by the number of people affected, is considerably less than the risk of catastrophic climate change multiplied by the number of people affected.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy has lost the plot .
First nuclear power as a way to save the planet .
Now 'putting democracy on hold ' to achieve the same goal.Other than you , he has the background to back it up.The actual operating problem with nuclear is that the attempt to get out of nuclear power was entirely botched , from the get-go , and very likely due to commercial lobbying .
The plants that we have now are old plants .
That means two things : One , they are dangerous and two they are incredibly profitable.Getting out of nuclear by not allowing new plants to be built was an incredibly dumb idea , and leaves us in the situation we have now , where many countries are discussing keeping the existing plants online for even longer , while not allowing new ones to be built .
We 're talking about old plants that , according to their original design specs , should already have been shut down.That is playing with fire a lot more than building a couple new and safer plants .
The problem is that emotionally , people do n't understand risk .
The only risks we understand on an intuitive level are those our brains are wired up for , which largely means immediate physical threats.Frankly , based on all the information I have gathered , I would gladly replace all the fossil power generation with nuclear right away , if it were my decision to make .
Yes , there is risk involved .
However , if you just do the math in your head , you 'll have to agree that the risk of a nuclear meltdown in a modern reactor , not a Chernobyl one from the 70s , multiplied by the number of people affected , is considerably less than the risk of catastrophic climate change multiplied by the number of people affected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy has lost the plot.
First nuclear power as a way to save the planet.
Now 'putting democracy on hold' to achieve the same goal.Other than you, he has the background to back it up.The actual operating problem with nuclear is that the attempt to get out of nuclear power was entirely botched, from the get-go, and very likely due to commercial lobbying.
The plants that we have now are old plants.
That means two things: One, they are dangerous and two they are incredibly profitable.Getting out of nuclear by not allowing new plants to be built was an incredibly dumb idea, and leaves us in the situation we have now, where many countries are discussing keeping the existing plants online for even longer, while not allowing new ones to be built.
We're talking about old plants that, according to their original design specs, should already have been shut down.That is playing with fire a lot more than building a couple new and safer plants.
The problem is that emotionally, people don't understand risk.
The only risks we understand on an intuitive level are those our brains are wired up for, which largely means immediate physical threats.Frankly, based on all the information I have gathered, I would gladly replace all the fossil power generation with nuclear right away, if it were my decision to make.
Yes, there is risk involved.
However, if you just do the math in your head, you'll have to agree that the risk of a nuclear meltdown in a modern reactor, not a Chernobyl one from the 70s, multiplied by the number of people affected, is considerably less than the risk of catastrophic climate change multiplied by the number of people affected.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680668</id>
	<title>Re:Which</title>
	<author>LordLucless</author>
	<datestamp>1269957120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the real problem behind this isn't overpopulation. The majority of carbon emmissions are made by the vast minority of the population. You could wipe out most of India and China (~30\% of the population) without making an impact in CO2 emissions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the real problem behind this is n't overpopulation .
The majority of carbon emmissions are made by the vast minority of the population .
You could wipe out most of India and China ( ~ 30 \ % of the population ) without making an impact in CO2 emissions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the real problem behind this isn't overpopulation.
The majority of carbon emmissions are made by the vast minority of the population.
You could wipe out most of India and China (~30\% of the population) without making an impact in CO2 emissions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680256</id>
	<title>i think</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1269955380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we need to put environmentalism on hold, to prevent a political catastrophe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we need to put environmentalism on hold , to prevent a political catastrophe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we need to put environmentalism on hold, to prevent a political catastrophe</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679496</id>
	<title>Start with James Lovelock's democratic rights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People like this who don't value their democratic freedoms should be made to live by their own decrees. So start with James Lovelock's democratic rights:</p><p>- I'm sorry Mr Lovelock, you no longer have a say in that</p><p>- I'm sorry Mr Lovelock, but you may no longer speak on that issue. If you do, you shall be arrested.</p><p>- I'm sorry Mr Lovelock, but you're under arrest. Your rights have been stripped so we don't have to give you a reason, or a trial, or let your family know.</p><p>- I'm sorry Mr Lovelock, but your food, water, and oxygen rations have been reallocated to someone else.</p><p>How'd ya like that lack of democracy now you crazy coote? Didn't think so.</p><p>Reductio ad aburdum? Perhaps, but then again what he's saying is so absurd perhaps the reductio part wasn't needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People like this who do n't value their democratic freedoms should be made to live by their own decrees .
So start with James Lovelock 's democratic rights : - I 'm sorry Mr Lovelock , you no longer have a say in that- I 'm sorry Mr Lovelock , but you may no longer speak on that issue .
If you do , you shall be arrested.- I 'm sorry Mr Lovelock , but you 're under arrest .
Your rights have been stripped so we do n't have to give you a reason , or a trial , or let your family know.- I 'm sorry Mr Lovelock , but your food , water , and oxygen rations have been reallocated to someone else.How 'd ya like that lack of democracy now you crazy coote ?
Did n't think so.Reductio ad aburdum ?
Perhaps , but then again what he 's saying is so absurd perhaps the reductio part was n't needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People like this who don't value their democratic freedoms should be made to live by their own decrees.
So start with James Lovelock's democratic rights:- I'm sorry Mr Lovelock, you no longer have a say in that- I'm sorry Mr Lovelock, but you may no longer speak on that issue.
If you do, you shall be arrested.- I'm sorry Mr Lovelock, but you're under arrest.
Your rights have been stripped so we don't have to give you a reason, or a trial, or let your family know.- I'm sorry Mr Lovelock, but your food, water, and oxygen rations have been reallocated to someone else.How'd ya like that lack of democracy now you crazy coote?
Didn't think so.Reductio ad aburdum?
Perhaps, but then again what he's saying is so absurd perhaps the reductio part wasn't needed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679572</id>
	<title>James Lovelock</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"James Lovelock".<br> <br>

Remember that name; he's an evil person.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" James Lovelock " .
Remember that name ; he 's an evil person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"James Lovelock".
Remember that name; he's an evil person.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682588</id>
	<title>Great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269967860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great idea James.  But, umm, we're going to have to have a vote on it first... sorry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great idea James .
But , umm , we 're going to have to have a vote on it first... sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great idea James.
But, umm, we're going to have to have a vote on it first... sorry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679582</id>
	<title>Gaia: Creationism for environmentalists</title>
	<author>GNUALMAFUERTE</author>
	<datestamp>1269952380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's all it is. This guy is a crackpot. He came up with a "theory" dressed up in science, that is nothing but wild speculation. Actually, it's not even speculation. It's Religion. He just decided the earth is a sentient being, without providing any kind of evidence for this ridiculous claim.</p><p>He also makes ridiculously close predictions for the "end of the world" and other unscientific predictions.</p><p>Now we know he's also against democracy.</p><p>What a nice guy.</p><p>Please, go ahead and try to measure him here <a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html" title="ucr.edu">http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html</a> [ucr.edu]. My crackpot-o-meter went off-scale after trying to measure his theories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all it is .
This guy is a crackpot .
He came up with a " theory " dressed up in science , that is nothing but wild speculation .
Actually , it 's not even speculation .
It 's Religion .
He just decided the earth is a sentient being , without providing any kind of evidence for this ridiculous claim.He also makes ridiculously close predictions for the " end of the world " and other unscientific predictions.Now we know he 's also against democracy.What a nice guy.Please , go ahead and try to measure him here http : //math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html [ ucr.edu ] .
My crackpot-o-meter went off-scale after trying to measure his theories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all it is.
This guy is a crackpot.
He came up with a "theory" dressed up in science, that is nothing but wild speculation.
Actually, it's not even speculation.
It's Religion.
He just decided the earth is a sentient being, without providing any kind of evidence for this ridiculous claim.He also makes ridiculously close predictions for the "end of the world" and other unscientific predictions.Now we know he's also against democracy.What a nice guy.Please, go ahead and try to measure him here http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html [ucr.edu].
My crackpot-o-meter went off-scale after trying to measure his theories.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681548</id>
	<title>Glen's food</title>
	<author>slashdotmsiriv</author>
	<datestamp>1269961620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, Glen Beck is gonna have a field day with this guy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , Glen Beck is gon na have a field day with this guy .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, Glen Beck is gonna have a field day with this guy ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31683720</id>
	<title>Why is he right this time?</title>
	<author>Bob&amp;Max</author>
	<datestamp>1269978060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The clever Mr. Lovelock, inventor of several useful gadgets, has repeatedly demonstrated very poor judgment. He was wrong about nuclear power, CFCs, and Global Warming causes. Now, he would like it if his superior intellect was recognized, democracy "suspended" and his opinions simply imposed. The problem, as previous poster NiceGeek observed, is that, once given a taste of autocracy, the anointed ones are unlikely to relinquish it.</p><p>His arrogance is typical of those who consider themselves superior to the masses. We have another one currently residing in the White House.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The clever Mr. Lovelock , inventor of several useful gadgets , has repeatedly demonstrated very poor judgment .
He was wrong about nuclear power , CFCs , and Global Warming causes .
Now , he would like it if his superior intellect was recognized , democracy " suspended " and his opinions simply imposed .
The problem , as previous poster NiceGeek observed , is that , once given a taste of autocracy , the anointed ones are unlikely to relinquish it.His arrogance is typical of those who consider themselves superior to the masses .
We have another one currently residing in the White House .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The clever Mr. Lovelock, inventor of several useful gadgets, has repeatedly demonstrated very poor judgment.
He was wrong about nuclear power, CFCs, and Global Warming causes.
Now, he would like it if his superior intellect was recognized, democracy "suspended" and his opinions simply imposed.
The problem, as previous poster NiceGeek observed, is that, once given a taste of autocracy, the anointed ones are unlikely to relinquish it.His arrogance is typical of those who consider themselves superior to the masses.
We have another one currently residing in the White House.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31683450</id>
	<title>Whatcouldgowrong</title>
	<author>binarybum</author>
	<datestamp>1269975600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sounds like a foolproof plan that should garner overwhelming support - why wait, let's implement!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sounds like a foolproof plan that should garner overwhelming support - why wait , let 's implement !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sounds like a foolproof plan that should garner overwhelming support - why wait, let's implement!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681824</id>
	<title>Re:LOL</title>
	<author>sunspot42</author>
	<datestamp>1269963180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that what he's saying?  Or is he saying that when the climate sh*t hits the fan, governments may start to put democracy "on hold" while they attempt to deal with it?  If you actually read what he says in the interview, his focus is more on what we can do in terms of disaster preparedness than on reducing carbon emissions.</p><p>If, for example, the Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica catastrophically slips into the ocean, creating tsunamis and raising global sea levels by about 2 meters overnight, who knows what governments will end up doing in response.  I suspect a lot of it would involve the at least partial suspension of democracy as we've known it, while governments scramble to deal with what amounts to a global natural disaster, impacting many if not most coastal cities, where a majority of the global population lives or works and where at least half of the gross planetary product is generated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that what he 's saying ?
Or is he saying that when the climate sh * t hits the fan , governments may start to put democracy " on hold " while they attempt to deal with it ?
If you actually read what he says in the interview , his focus is more on what we can do in terms of disaster preparedness than on reducing carbon emissions.If , for example , the Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica catastrophically slips into the ocean , creating tsunamis and raising global sea levels by about 2 meters overnight , who knows what governments will end up doing in response .
I suspect a lot of it would involve the at least partial suspension of democracy as we 've known it , while governments scramble to deal with what amounts to a global natural disaster , impacting many if not most coastal cities , where a majority of the global population lives or works and where at least half of the gross planetary product is generated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that what he's saying?
Or is he saying that when the climate sh*t hits the fan, governments may start to put democracy "on hold" while they attempt to deal with it?
If you actually read what he says in the interview, his focus is more on what we can do in terms of disaster preparedness than on reducing carbon emissions.If, for example, the Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica catastrophically slips into the ocean, creating tsunamis and raising global sea levels by about 2 meters overnight, who knows what governments will end up doing in response.
I suspect a lot of it would involve the at least partial suspension of democracy as we've known it, while governments scramble to deal with what amounts to a global natural disaster, impacting many if not most coastal cities, where a majority of the global population lives or works and where at least half of the gross planetary product is generated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682754</id>
	<title>Dear Mr. Lovelock,</title>
	<author>Dunega</author>
	<datestamp>1269969240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fuck you.

Kindly,
Most of the rest of us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck you .
Kindly , Most of the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck you.
Kindly,
Most of the rest of us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679808</id>
	<title>And you are afraid to lose your delusions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269953400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Evidently the people you ridicule are smarter than you are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Evidently the people you ridicule are smarter than you are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Evidently the people you ridicule are smarter than you are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679716</id>
	<title>It's just two turns of anarchy</title>
	<author>Moraelin</author>
	<datestamp>1269953040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, yes, but the difference between republic and democracy is just two turns of anarchy. 'Course, you just have to choose the right time, 'cause you just know someone out there has an army of anti-tank spearmen with your name on it the moment you're with your pants down<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , yes , but the difference between republic and democracy is just two turns of anarchy .
'Course , you just have to choose the right time , 'cause you just know someone out there has an army of anti-tank spearmen with your name on it the moment you 're with your pants down ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, yes, but the difference between republic and democracy is just two turns of anarchy.
'Course, you just have to choose the right time, 'cause you just know someone out there has an army of anti-tank spearmen with your name on it the moment you're with your pants down ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679680</id>
	<title>Please...</title>
	<author>aBaldrich</author>
	<datestamp>1269952860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you remember what happened the last time that a developed country put democracy 'on hold'?<br>

Take a look at the most important armed conflicts of the british empire in the last 60 years.<ul>
<li>World War II</li>
<li>(Cold War)</li>
<li>Falklands' War</li>
<li>Gulf War I</li>
<li>Kosovo War</li>
<li>Gulf War II</li>
</ul><p>
What do they have in common?<br>

You guessed! Suspended democracy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you remember what happened the last time that a developed country put democracy 'on hold ' ?
Take a look at the most important armed conflicts of the british empire in the last 60 years .
World War II ( Cold War ) Falklands ' War Gulf War I Kosovo War Gulf War II What do they have in common ?
You guessed !
Suspended democracy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you remember what happened the last time that a developed country put democracy 'on hold'?
Take a look at the most important armed conflicts of the british empire in the last 60 years.
World War II
(Cold War)
Falklands' War
Gulf War I
Kosovo War
Gulf War II

What do they have in common?
You guessed!
Suspended democracy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681982</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not defending the statement...</title>
	<author>sunspot42</author>
	<datestamp>1269964200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It goes beyond that.  Even if you assume all the CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere has zero impact on climate, the climate is gonna change, and potentially within the lifetimes of most of the people reading this post.  There's a great deal of evidence that big glaciers in Antarctica are melting faster than they're being replenished, and that some of them could catastrophically slip into the sea within the next few hundred years.  We've been lucky to avoid any globe-spanning natural disasters like that throughout the past couple thousand years, but our luck won't hold forever.  A lot of the defensive measures Lovelock advocates for combating climate change - like improving flood barriers on the Thames for the city of London, or perfecting methods for synthesizing food - will likely pay off even if we get lucky and all that CO2 doesn't itself contribute to a great melt.</p><p>For example, what happens if the Yellowstone Supervolcano blows?  You could have crop failures for years, not just in the US but elsewhere around the globe.  That might do more than suspend democracy - it could suspend civilization.  An ability to synthesize food could come in very handy in such a situation (unless you want to unwillingly become Soylent Green for some starving mob).</p><p>It seems to me that what Lovelock is arguing is that the science tells us there are these threats, these global threats to the security of our civilization, and that we should be planning for them accordingly now while we can so that we don't have to cope with them entirely unprepared if/when hey do roll around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It goes beyond that .
Even if you assume all the CO2 we 're pumping into the atmosphere has zero impact on climate , the climate is gon na change , and potentially within the lifetimes of most of the people reading this post .
There 's a great deal of evidence that big glaciers in Antarctica are melting faster than they 're being replenished , and that some of them could catastrophically slip into the sea within the next few hundred years .
We 've been lucky to avoid any globe-spanning natural disasters like that throughout the past couple thousand years , but our luck wo n't hold forever .
A lot of the defensive measures Lovelock advocates for combating climate change - like improving flood barriers on the Thames for the city of London , or perfecting methods for synthesizing food - will likely pay off even if we get lucky and all that CO2 does n't itself contribute to a great melt.For example , what happens if the Yellowstone Supervolcano blows ?
You could have crop failures for years , not just in the US but elsewhere around the globe .
That might do more than suspend democracy - it could suspend civilization .
An ability to synthesize food could come in very handy in such a situation ( unless you want to unwillingly become Soylent Green for some starving mob ) .It seems to me that what Lovelock is arguing is that the science tells us there are these threats , these global threats to the security of our civilization , and that we should be planning for them accordingly now while we can so that we do n't have to cope with them entirely unprepared if/when hey do roll around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It goes beyond that.
Even if you assume all the CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere has zero impact on climate, the climate is gonna change, and potentially within the lifetimes of most of the people reading this post.
There's a great deal of evidence that big glaciers in Antarctica are melting faster than they're being replenished, and that some of them could catastrophically slip into the sea within the next few hundred years.
We've been lucky to avoid any globe-spanning natural disasters like that throughout the past couple thousand years, but our luck won't hold forever.
A lot of the defensive measures Lovelock advocates for combating climate change - like improving flood barriers on the Thames for the city of London, or perfecting methods for synthesizing food - will likely pay off even if we get lucky and all that CO2 doesn't itself contribute to a great melt.For example, what happens if the Yellowstone Supervolcano blows?
You could have crop failures for years, not just in the US but elsewhere around the globe.
That might do more than suspend democracy - it could suspend civilization.
An ability to synthesize food could come in very handy in such a situation (unless you want to unwillingly become Soylent Green for some starving mob).It seems to me that what Lovelock is arguing is that the science tells us there are these threats, these global threats to the security of our civilization, and that we should be planning for them accordingly now while we can so that we don't have to cope with them entirely unprepared if/when hey do roll around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679522</id>
	<title>Clarity Nazi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, I know building is both a noun and verb and all, but come on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I know building is both a noun and verb and all , but come on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I know building is both a noun and verb and all, but come on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680160</id>
	<title>already tried that</title>
	<author>SixAndFiftyThree</author>
	<datestamp>1269955020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the world, and especially the country that was so newsworthily stubborn at Copenhagen, has been keeping democracy on hold for the past several thousand years, but the globe is getting warmer anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the world , and especially the country that was so newsworthily stubborn at Copenhagen , has been keeping democracy on hold for the past several thousand years , but the globe is getting warmer anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the world, and especially the country that was so newsworthily stubborn at Copenhagen, has been keeping democracy on hold for the past several thousand years, but the globe is getting warmer anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679712</id>
	<title>The committee for public safety would like a word</title>
	<author>mveloso</author>
	<datestamp>1269953040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Off with your heads, you environmentally insensitive clods!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Off with your heads , you environmentally insensitive clods !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Off with your heads, you environmentally insensitive clods!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679860</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1269953640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Abolish elections and select your legislatures by random sampling of the population.</p><p>That completely undermines parties as well as saving the huge costs of elections and the corruption of election financing by big corporations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Abolish elections and select your legislatures by random sampling of the population.That completely undermines parties as well as saving the huge costs of elections and the corruption of election financing by big corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Abolish elections and select your legislatures by random sampling of the population.That completely undermines parties as well as saving the huge costs of elections and the corruption of election financing by big corporations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679444</id>
	<title>Gaea</title>
	<author>Black Parrot</author>
	<datestamp>1269951840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think anyone has taken Gaea seriously since someone pointed out that the switch-over to an oxygen-rich atmosphere meant Gaea essentially committed suicide to bring on the new order of things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think anyone has taken Gaea seriously since someone pointed out that the switch-over to an oxygen-rich atmosphere meant Gaea essentially committed suicide to bring on the new order of things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think anyone has taken Gaea seriously since someone pointed out that the switch-over to an oxygen-rich atmosphere meant Gaea essentially committed suicide to bring on the new order of things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685690</id>
	<title>This is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270040160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is eco-terrorism</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is eco-terrorism</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is eco-terrorism</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682764</id>
	<title>Re:Start with James Lovelock's democratic rights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269969300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If he honestly thinks that an environmental disaster is approaching, and that people will need to give up certain rights in order to avert it - then maybe he would be willing to give up those rights himself, provided that certain environmental policies are applied.  He might be totally non-hypocritical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If he honestly thinks that an environmental disaster is approaching , and that people will need to give up certain rights in order to avert it - then maybe he would be willing to give up those rights himself , provided that certain environmental policies are applied .
He might be totally non-hypocritical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If he honestly thinks that an environmental disaster is approaching, and that people will need to give up certain rights in order to avert it - then maybe he would be willing to give up those rights himself, provided that certain environmental policies are applied.
He might be totally non-hypocritical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680616</id>
	<title>Lovelock is a watermelon</title>
	<author>Scareduck</author>
	<datestamp>1269956940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Scratch the Green, find the Red beneath.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Scratch the Green , find the Red beneath .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scratch the Green, find the Red beneath.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680520</id>
	<title>Re:Electorate afraid to lose their "Lifestyle"</title>
	<author>cheesybagel</author>
	<datestamp>1269956400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
FWIW I do not believe it was a myth created to do any of those things. I believe it was an existing myth, or more accurately a fallacy, exploited out of proportion in order to enable some of those things. You just have to see the speeches and actions from supporters of policies to supposedly mitigate global warming. They certainly propose raising taxes (via 'carbon credits'), and wealth redistribution (to non-developed regions of the planet). Oh and developing nations do not pay. Nearly all of our energy sources produce global warming (coal, natural gas, petroleum, hydroelectric (if it's built from concrete it's evil, wouldn't you rather chop some trees instead?), or nuclear (yep, concrete)). In fact just by living a person or an animal is emitting noxious global warming gases. Fancy some population reduction? In reality the thing they want us to stop producing the most (CO2) is not noxious at all. You exhale it all the time. There was loads more CO2 in the Jurassic Period yet there was extensive and prolific life across the planet, and it wasn't covered with deserts either. Which makes sense when you consider that plants actually consume CO2 in order to live and store energy.
</p><p>
If you do oxygen rich combustion of natural gas or petroleum you get CO2 and H2O. Neither are nasty things. You (and all life) exhale both. The problem is things that did not burn properly, like aromatics, nitrogen oxide (because the atmosphere has nitrogen in it), ozone (yes), carbon monoxide, or other nasty stuff that has nefarious effects on humans. Or other non-hydrocarbon additives or contaminants in the fuel (sulfur in diesel, a zillion things in coal, etc). Curiously at least sulfur and soot, which are bad for people's health (e.g. black lung disease), actually decrease global warming by increasing albedo from extra cloud cover. As you can probably see by now what reduces temperature and is good for human (or even animal) health is not necessarily the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FWIW I do not believe it was a myth created to do any of those things .
I believe it was an existing myth , or more accurately a fallacy , exploited out of proportion in order to enable some of those things .
You just have to see the speeches and actions from supporters of policies to supposedly mitigate global warming .
They certainly propose raising taxes ( via 'carbon credits ' ) , and wealth redistribution ( to non-developed regions of the planet ) .
Oh and developing nations do not pay .
Nearly all of our energy sources produce global warming ( coal , natural gas , petroleum , hydroelectric ( if it 's built from concrete it 's evil , would n't you rather chop some trees instead ?
) , or nuclear ( yep , concrete ) ) .
In fact just by living a person or an animal is emitting noxious global warming gases .
Fancy some population reduction ?
In reality the thing they want us to stop producing the most ( CO2 ) is not noxious at all .
You exhale it all the time .
There was loads more CO2 in the Jurassic Period yet there was extensive and prolific life across the planet , and it was n't covered with deserts either .
Which makes sense when you consider that plants actually consume CO2 in order to live and store energy .
If you do oxygen rich combustion of natural gas or petroleum you get CO2 and H2O .
Neither are nasty things .
You ( and all life ) exhale both .
The problem is things that did not burn properly , like aromatics , nitrogen oxide ( because the atmosphere has nitrogen in it ) , ozone ( yes ) , carbon monoxide , or other nasty stuff that has nefarious effects on humans .
Or other non-hydrocarbon additives or contaminants in the fuel ( sulfur in diesel , a zillion things in coal , etc ) .
Curiously at least sulfur and soot , which are bad for people 's health ( e.g .
black lung disease ) , actually decrease global warming by increasing albedo from extra cloud cover .
As you can probably see by now what reduces temperature and is good for human ( or even animal ) health is not necessarily the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
FWIW I do not believe it was a myth created to do any of those things.
I believe it was an existing myth, or more accurately a fallacy, exploited out of proportion in order to enable some of those things.
You just have to see the speeches and actions from supporters of policies to supposedly mitigate global warming.
They certainly propose raising taxes (via 'carbon credits'), and wealth redistribution (to non-developed regions of the planet).
Oh and developing nations do not pay.
Nearly all of our energy sources produce global warming (coal, natural gas, petroleum, hydroelectric (if it's built from concrete it's evil, wouldn't you rather chop some trees instead?
), or nuclear (yep, concrete)).
In fact just by living a person or an animal is emitting noxious global warming gases.
Fancy some population reduction?
In reality the thing they want us to stop producing the most (CO2) is not noxious at all.
You exhale it all the time.
There was loads more CO2 in the Jurassic Period yet there was extensive and prolific life across the planet, and it wasn't covered with deserts either.
Which makes sense when you consider that plants actually consume CO2 in order to live and store energy.
If you do oxygen rich combustion of natural gas or petroleum you get CO2 and H2O.
Neither are nasty things.
You (and all life) exhale both.
The problem is things that did not burn properly, like aromatics, nitrogen oxide (because the atmosphere has nitrogen in it), ozone (yes), carbon monoxide, or other nasty stuff that has nefarious effects on humans.
Or other non-hydrocarbon additives or contaminants in the fuel (sulfur in diesel, a zillion things in coal, etc).
Curiously at least sulfur and soot, which are bad for people's health (e.g.
black lung disease), actually decrease global warming by increasing albedo from extra cloud cover.
As you can probably see by now what reduces temperature and is good for human (or even animal) health is not necessarily the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679632</id>
	<title>My response is so what?</title>
	<author>DarkOx</author>
	<datestamp>1269952680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we have to give up essential freedom to stop climate change than I don't want stop it all.  I'd rather just adapt to the new conditions whatever they may be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we have to give up essential freedom to stop climate change than I do n't want stop it all .
I 'd rather just adapt to the new conditions whatever they may be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we have to give up essential freedom to stop climate change than I don't want stop it all.
I'd rather just adapt to the new conditions whatever they may be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679284</id>
	<title>Um..no</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269951300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm an environmentalist, but I also know that if you put democracy "on hold" it's awfully hard to get it started again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm an environmentalist , but I also know that if you put democracy " on hold " it 's awfully hard to get it started again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm an environmentalist, but I also know that if you put democracy "on hold" it's awfully hard to get it started again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685420</id>
	<title>Re:I thought we needed to put democracy on hold</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1270037880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>terrorist porn</p></div></blockquote><p>That would be Goatse</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>terrorist pornThat would be Goatse</tokentext>
<sentencetext>terrorist pornThat would be Goatse
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680000</id>
	<title>How to get global government?</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1269954360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People is too stupid to coordinate to save the environment, i agree with that. Will be even harder to coordinate how to get a global government, unless some major empir... i mean government basically go to global war "for the environment" (not that it is a weaker excuse than most that have been used for previous wars). Maybe a global termonuclear war will solve the environment problem (or at least, the problem around those tiny little creatures that are causing it).</htmltext>
<tokenext>People is too stupid to coordinate to save the environment , i agree with that .
Will be even harder to coordinate how to get a global government , unless some major empir... i mean government basically go to global war " for the environment " ( not that it is a weaker excuse than most that have been used for previous wars ) .
Maybe a global termonuclear war will solve the environment problem ( or at least , the problem around those tiny little creatures that are causing it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People is too stupid to coordinate to save the environment, i agree with that.
Will be even harder to coordinate how to get a global government, unless some major empir... i mean government basically go to global war "for the environment" (not that it is a weaker excuse than most that have been used for previous wars).
Maybe a global termonuclear war will solve the environment problem (or at least, the problem around those tiny little creatures that are causing it).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679360</id>
	<title>He's got historical precedent on his side</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1269951600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He does have historical precedent on his side - after all, Plato thought that the best form of government would be rule by philosopher-kings.</p><p>In terms of practical historical precedent, not so much. This sort of thing tends to end badly. I think it's far better for us to thrash these issues out now, so that in the future everyone will be more aware of the <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/denialists\_deck\_of\_cards/" title="scienceblogs.com">standard array of denialist tactics.</a> [scienceblogs.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He does have historical precedent on his side - after all , Plato thought that the best form of government would be rule by philosopher-kings.In terms of practical historical precedent , not so much .
This sort of thing tends to end badly .
I think it 's far better for us to thrash these issues out now , so that in the future everyone will be more aware of the standard array of denialist tactics .
[ scienceblogs.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He does have historical precedent on his side - after all, Plato thought that the best form of government would be rule by philosopher-kings.In terms of practical historical precedent, not so much.
This sort of thing tends to end badly.
I think it's far better for us to thrash these issues out now, so that in the future everyone will be more aware of the standard array of denialist tactics.
[scienceblogs.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679578</id>
	<title>Re:He's got historical precedent on his side</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Plato thought that the best form of government would be rule by philosopher-kings.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm with Plato: the general population is too stupid for a democratic system. Unfortunately we have not yet reached <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Culture" title="wikipedia.org">Culture</a> [wikipedia.org] levels of technology so it's the best option we have at the moment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plato thought that the best form of government would be rule by philosopher-kings.I 'm with Plato : the general population is too stupid for a democratic system .
Unfortunately we have not yet reached Culture [ wikipedia.org ] levels of technology so it 's the best option we have at the moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plato thought that the best form of government would be rule by philosopher-kings.I'm with Plato: the general population is too stupid for a democratic system.
Unfortunately we have not yet reached Culture [wikipedia.org] levels of technology so it's the best option we have at the moment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679742</id>
	<title>Re:Electorate afraid to lose their "Lifestyle"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269953160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://mediagallery.usatoday.com/Editorial-Cartoons/G373,S81137" title="usatoday.com" rel="nofollow">This is the comic.</a> [usatoday.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the comic .
[ usatoday.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the comic.
[usatoday.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679564</id>
	<title>THIS is going to put the deniers at ease</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Conspiracy theorists are babbling about how climate change is an excuse to suspend democracy and unite all countries under a world government, and the solution is to suspend democracy and unite all countries under a world government in order to combat climate change. That's deliciously ironic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Conspiracy theorists are babbling about how climate change is an excuse to suspend democracy and unite all countries under a world government , and the solution is to suspend democracy and unite all countries under a world government in order to combat climate change .
That 's deliciously ironic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conspiracy theorists are babbling about how climate change is an excuse to suspend democracy and unite all countries under a world government, and the solution is to suspend democracy and unite all countries under a world government in order to combat climate change.
That's deliciously ironic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31686128</id>
	<title>I for one ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270043220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... welcome our new Science Council overlords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... welcome our new Science Council overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... welcome our new Science Council overlords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681940</id>
	<title>Maybe</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1269963900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>          Frankly the only advantage to a dictatorship or communist regime is the ability to act suddenly. In democratic populations things take much longer times to get done.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; And global warming may hit us so hard and cause so much death and destruction that we almost have to take radical actions<br>just to try and stay alive. Worse yet, this problem is so serious that our world may perish despite our unlimited efforts. Global warming may not be a solvable problem at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly the only advantage to a dictatorship or communist regime is the ability to act suddenly .
In democratic populations things take much longer times to get done .
                    And global warming may hit us so hard and cause so much death and destruction that we almost have to take radical actionsjust to try and stay alive .
Worse yet , this problem is so serious that our world may perish despite our unlimited efforts .
Global warming may not be a solvable problem at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>          Frankly the only advantage to a dictatorship or communist regime is the ability to act suddenly.
In democratic populations things take much longer times to get done.
                    And global warming may hit us so hard and cause so much death and destruction that we almost have to take radical actionsjust to try and stay alive.
Worse yet, this problem is so serious that our world may perish despite our unlimited efforts.
Global warming may not be a solvable problem at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31686754</id>
	<title>I agree, Democracy must end ...</title>
	<author>bkeahl</author>
	<datestamp>1270046580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Democracy is just mob rule on a larger scale.  The U.S.. is, in theory, a republic.  We're functioning as a Democracy and it's making a bloody mess of the place. Without the protections of individual liberty democracy will ultimately lead to enslavement of those who produce to those who don't and the enslavement of the non-producers to the government for their survival.
<br> <br>
No, the environmental fix is to continue to progress technologically.  At some point someone/company will discover a way to become fabulously rich undermining oil as the means of producing energy.  That will put an end to the oil-age of our economy. Government funded wind turbines and solar panels aren't going to be the answer, you just can't get enough KW/acre and per $ of construction cost to make it practical (yet).  When someone does, they'll seize on the opportunity to become fabulously rich<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).  Yeah, a recurring theme here.
<br> <br>
<i>"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Democracy is just mob rule on a larger scale .
The U.S.. is , in theory , a republic .
We 're functioning as a Democracy and it 's making a bloody mess of the place .
Without the protections of individual liberty democracy will ultimately lead to enslavement of those who produce to those who do n't and the enslavement of the non-producers to the government for their survival .
No , the environmental fix is to continue to progress technologically .
At some point someone/company will discover a way to become fabulously rich undermining oil as the means of producing energy .
That will put an end to the oil-age of our economy .
Government funded wind turbines and solar panels are n't going to be the answer , you just ca n't get enough KW/acre and per $ of construction cost to make it practical ( yet ) .
When someone does , they 'll seize on the opportunity to become fabulously rich : ) .
Yeah , a recurring theme here .
" Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch .
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Democracy is just mob rule on a larger scale.
The U.S.. is, in theory, a republic.
We're functioning as a Democracy and it's making a bloody mess of the place.
Without the protections of individual liberty democracy will ultimately lead to enslavement of those who produce to those who don't and the enslavement of the non-producers to the government for their survival.
No, the environmental fix is to continue to progress technologically.
At some point someone/company will discover a way to become fabulously rich undermining oil as the means of producing energy.
That will put an end to the oil-age of our economy.
Government funded wind turbines and solar panels aren't going to be the answer, you just can't get enough KW/acre and per $ of construction cost to make it practical (yet).
When someone does, they'll seize on the opportunity to become fabulously rich :).
Yeah, a recurring theme here.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31683442</id>
	<title>Bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269975360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a load of bullshit. So global warming exists because we all voluntarily choose to pollute? Global warming exists because we can't choose not to. We don't have a saying in how things are run; your boss, your mayor, your president and governor do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a load of bullshit .
So global warming exists because we all voluntarily choose to pollute ?
Global warming exists because we ca n't choose not to .
We do n't have a saying in how things are run ; your boss , your mayor , your president and governor do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a load of bullshit.
So global warming exists because we all voluntarily choose to pollute?
Global warming exists because we can't choose not to.
We don't have a saying in how things are run; your boss, your mayor, your president and governor do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682722</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269968940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ban the party system.</p></div><p>*cough cough* <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist\_Papers" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Federalist Papers</a> [wikipedia.org] *cough cough*</p><p>Summary: Political parties do harm but are inevitable. Any attempt to ban them is doomed to failure because people will band together around a party-like system for their own paper no matter what you do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ban the party system .
* cough cough * Federalist Papers [ wikipedia.org ] * cough cough * Summary : Political parties do harm but are inevitable .
Any attempt to ban them is doomed to failure because people will band together around a party-like system for their own paper no matter what you do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ban the party system.
*cough cough* Federalist Papers [wikipedia.org] *cough cough*Summary: Political parties do harm but are inevitable.
Any attempt to ban them is doomed to failure because people will band together around a party-like system for their own paper no matter what you do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679518</id>
	<title>Fucking idiot.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What else is there to say? That kind of a stupid argument does not deserve a second of consideration or refutation. Save the world one step at a time: Shut up and die, one less source of carbon dioxide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What else is there to say ?
That kind of a stupid argument does not deserve a second of consideration or refutation .
Save the world one step at a time : Shut up and die , one less source of carbon dioxide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What else is there to say?
That kind of a stupid argument does not deserve a second of consideration or refutation.
Save the world one step at a time: Shut up and die, one less source of carbon dioxide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680100</id>
	<title>What a genius!</title>
	<author>initialE</author>
	<datestamp>1269954780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Step 1: put democracy on hold<br>Step 2: go to war. Civil war, wars between nations, whatever. 4 billion people get killed<br>Step 3: the environmental problems may peak at first, what with the rampant destruction and all that, but after that, it all gets better!</p><p>No profit here, nowhere to spend it anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Step 1 : put democracy on holdStep 2 : go to war .
Civil war , wars between nations , whatever .
4 billion people get killedStep 3 : the environmental problems may peak at first , what with the rampant destruction and all that , but after that , it all gets better ! No profit here , nowhere to spend it anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Step 1: put democracy on holdStep 2: go to war.
Civil war, wars between nations, whatever.
4 billion people get killedStep 3: the environmental problems may peak at first, what with the rampant destruction and all that, but after that, it all gets better!No profit here, nowhere to spend it anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679608</id>
	<title>Tell you what..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's put it to a vote.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's put it to a vote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's put it to a vote.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</id>
	<title>Democracy?</title>
	<author>dsginter</author>
	<datestamp>1269951420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here in the US, we don't have democracy now.  We have a two party, democratic REPUBLIC.  The politicians can pretty much do whatever they want after they have been elected because the media has conditioned us to believe that we have only two parties from which to choose (i.e. - "bipartisan").</p><p>Ban the party system.  At this point, the legislative vending machine that we call "government" will fall apart and we'll have something much closer to "democracy".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in the US , we do n't have democracy now .
We have a two party , democratic REPUBLIC .
The politicians can pretty much do whatever they want after they have been elected because the media has conditioned us to believe that we have only two parties from which to choose ( i.e .
- " bipartisan " ) .Ban the party system .
At this point , the legislative vending machine that we call " government " will fall apart and we 'll have something much closer to " democracy " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in the US, we don't have democracy now.
We have a two party, democratic REPUBLIC.
The politicians can pretty much do whatever they want after they have been elected because the media has conditioned us to believe that we have only two parties from which to choose (i.e.
- "bipartisan").Ban the party system.
At this point, the legislative vending machine that we call "government" will fall apart and we'll have something much closer to "democracy".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680562</id>
	<title>The War would affect climate</title>
	<author>amiga3D</author>
	<datestamp>1269956580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As the global government cements its power in an ocean of blood just imagine how much damage all the bombs, rockets and nerve agents will do for the world ecosystem.  You've got to figure that a massive amount of the worlds citizenry are not going to go along with the eco-gov and will have to be crushed militarily.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As the global government cements its power in an ocean of blood just imagine how much damage all the bombs , rockets and nerve agents will do for the world ecosystem .
You 've got to figure that a massive amount of the worlds citizenry are not going to go along with the eco-gov and will have to be crushed militarily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the global government cements its power in an ocean of blood just imagine how much damage all the bombs, rockets and nerve agents will do for the world ecosystem.
You've got to figure that a massive amount of the worlds citizenry are not going to go along with the eco-gov and will have to be crushed militarily.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31683620</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>newhoggy</author>
	<datestamp>1269977340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Abolish elections and select your legislatures by random sampling of the population.</p><p>That completely undermines parties as well as saving the huge costs of elections and the corruption of election financing by big corporations.</p></div><p>That's what you call a Jury, and it's not such a bad idea.</p><p>You may as well make it a Jury - consensus decision making, new juries selected to judge on each new bill, 12 jurists, etc. It can even make decision making faster because you can have multiple Juries deliberating on separate bills at the same time.</p><p>It doesn't mean we can't have elected representatives elected by generate elections.  They just won't be passing any laws themselves.  They can only sponsor bills and speak for or against bills sponsored by any representative.  The Jury would be sole body responsible for passing it into law, and unanimous decision making</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Abolish elections and select your legislatures by random sampling of the population.That completely undermines parties as well as saving the huge costs of elections and the corruption of election financing by big corporations.That 's what you call a Jury , and it 's not such a bad idea.You may as well make it a Jury - consensus decision making , new juries selected to judge on each new bill , 12 jurists , etc .
It can even make decision making faster because you can have multiple Juries deliberating on separate bills at the same time.It does n't mean we ca n't have elected representatives elected by generate elections .
They just wo n't be passing any laws themselves .
They can only sponsor bills and speak for or against bills sponsored by any representative .
The Jury would be sole body responsible for passing it into law , and unanimous decision making</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Abolish elections and select your legislatures by random sampling of the population.That completely undermines parties as well as saving the huge costs of elections and the corruption of election financing by big corporations.That's what you call a Jury, and it's not such a bad idea.You may as well make it a Jury - consensus decision making, new juries selected to judge on each new bill, 12 jurists, etc.
It can even make decision making faster because you can have multiple Juries deliberating on separate bills at the same time.It doesn't mean we can't have elected representatives elected by generate elections.
They just won't be passing any laws themselves.
They can only sponsor bills and speak for or against bills sponsored by any representative.
The Jury would be sole body responsible for passing it into law, and unanimous decision making
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681950</id>
	<title>Re:Let's go to the videotape</title>
	<author>Buelldozer</author>
	<datestamp>1269964020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm trying to see things your (and lovelock's) way but my mind doesn't bend that far.</p><p>If A = true then perform B.</p><p>If Z = A then perform B.</p><p>Where A = War, B = suspend democracy, and Z = Global warming.</p><p>Following these conditions then "Suspend Democracy" is precisely what Lovelock is talking about. There are other meanings in his message, but this one is very clear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm trying to see things your ( and lovelock 's ) way but my mind does n't bend that far.If A = true then perform B.If Z = A then perform B.Where A = War , B = suspend democracy , and Z = Global warming.Following these conditions then " Suspend Democracy " is precisely what Lovelock is talking about .
There are other meanings in his message , but this one is very clear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm trying to see things your (and lovelock's) way but my mind doesn't bend that far.If A = true then perform B.If Z = A then perform B.Where A = War, B = suspend democracy, and Z = Global warming.Following these conditions then "Suspend Democracy" is precisely what Lovelock is talking about.
There are other meanings in his message, but this one is very clear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680058</id>
	<title>I Agree with Lovelock: my first proposal</title>
	<author>loox</author>
	<datestamp>1269954600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's begin by stopping freedom of speech for James Lovelock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's begin by stopping freedom of speech for James Lovelock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's begin by stopping freedom of speech for James Lovelock.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679528</id>
	<title>"suspend democracy"...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with the AGW crowd is that their solutions invariably seem to involve money and power transfers that endorse or parallel the Socialist ideals.  If this is TRULY a LIFE OR DEATH situation then we shouldn't be giving exemptions under the Kyoto Protocol to burgeoning economies such as China and India "because the West wasn't burdened with the same artificial constraints during its boom years"...

Take the politics out of global warming or else I and many others like me will continue to thumb my nose at it.  I WOULD RATHER LIVE IN A HOT, FREE SOCIETY WITH DEAD POLAR BEARS AND SHRINKING COASTLINES THAN A SOCIALIST ONE.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with the AGW crowd is that their solutions invariably seem to involve money and power transfers that endorse or parallel the Socialist ideals .
If this is TRULY a LIFE OR DEATH situation then we should n't be giving exemptions under the Kyoto Protocol to burgeoning economies such as China and India " because the West was n't burdened with the same artificial constraints during its boom years " .. . Take the politics out of global warming or else I and many others like me will continue to thumb my nose at it .
I WOULD RATHER LIVE IN A HOT , FREE SOCIETY WITH DEAD POLAR BEARS AND SHRINKING COASTLINES THAN A SOCIALIST ONE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with the AGW crowd is that their solutions invariably seem to involve money and power transfers that endorse or parallel the Socialist ideals.
If this is TRULY a LIFE OR DEATH situation then we shouldn't be giving exemptions under the Kyoto Protocol to burgeoning economies such as China and India "because the West wasn't burdened with the same artificial constraints during its boom years"...

Take the politics out of global warming or else I and many others like me will continue to thumb my nose at it.
I WOULD RATHER LIVE IN A HOT, FREE SOCIETY WITH DEAD POLAR BEARS AND SHRINKING COASTLINES THAN A SOCIALIST ONE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679334</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269951540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i suppose if we can suspend democracy and civil rights to fight the TERRORISTS,<br>we also can suspend them to stop global warming...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i suppose if we can suspend democracy and civil rights to fight the TERRORISTS,we also can suspend them to stop global warming.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i suppose if we can suspend democracy and civil rights to fight the TERRORISTS,we also can suspend them to stop global warming...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681330</id>
	<title>Ask von Papen and Hindenburg how that turned out.</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1269960540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Suspending democracy means killing or imprisoning dissidents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suspending democracy means killing or imprisoning dissidents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suspending democracy means killing or imprisoning dissidents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685868</id>
	<title>why are we listening to political advice</title>
	<author>Uzik2</author>
	<datestamp>1270041600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>from a weather scientist? He might be talented at meterology (and maybe he isn't) but he's not got a clue about people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>from a weather scientist ?
He might be talented at meterology ( and maybe he is n't ) but he 's not got a clue about people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from a weather scientist?
He might be talented at meterology (and maybe he isn't) but he's not got a clue about people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679614</id>
	<title>Global Warming as Back-door to Global Government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a significant amount of evidence that global warming is not even really driven by humanity.  Even if you ignore the fact that the sun, and therefore the entire solar system, is heating up, the cause of earth-bound heating effects are still undetermined.  It is a matter of no small debate among climatologists.  Hardly a settled question.</p><p>It is therefore quite disturbing to see the suggestion that the level of self-determination in terms of leadership and political decision-making should be curtailed in order to ameliorate the effect that people may or may not be having on the environment.</p><p>dsginter makes a good point, but regardless of exactly how much sovereignty the people currently have over themselves, (and I think we can all agree that it's not much (and already declining...)) there's no reason to strip it away entirely over global warming--especially since all the facts are not in.</p><p>I tend to think that there exist powers (that be) that wish to "put democracy on hold" for their own selfish reasons.  Hence, the generation of such lame justification for said "on-hold-putting" as this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a significant amount of evidence that global warming is not even really driven by humanity .
Even if you ignore the fact that the sun , and therefore the entire solar system , is heating up , the cause of earth-bound heating effects are still undetermined .
It is a matter of no small debate among climatologists .
Hardly a settled question.It is therefore quite disturbing to see the suggestion that the level of self-determination in terms of leadership and political decision-making should be curtailed in order to ameliorate the effect that people may or may not be having on the environment.dsginter makes a good point , but regardless of exactly how much sovereignty the people currently have over themselves , ( and I think we can all agree that it 's not much ( and already declining... ) ) there 's no reason to strip it away entirely over global warming--especially since all the facts are not in.I tend to think that there exist powers ( that be ) that wish to " put democracy on hold " for their own selfish reasons .
Hence , the generation of such lame justification for said " on-hold-putting " as this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a significant amount of evidence that global warming is not even really driven by humanity.
Even if you ignore the fact that the sun, and therefore the entire solar system, is heating up, the cause of earth-bound heating effects are still undetermined.
It is a matter of no small debate among climatologists.
Hardly a settled question.It is therefore quite disturbing to see the suggestion that the level of self-determination in terms of leadership and political decision-making should be curtailed in order to ameliorate the effect that people may or may not be having on the environment.dsginter makes a good point, but regardless of exactly how much sovereignty the people currently have over themselves, (and I think we can all agree that it's not much (and already declining...)) there's no reason to strip it away entirely over global warming--especially since all the facts are not in.I tend to think that there exist powers (that be) that wish to "put democracy on hold" for their own selfish reasons.
Hence, the generation of such lame justification for said "on-hold-putting" as this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679344</id>
	<title>Oh dear</title>
	<author>Anrego</author>
	<datestamp>1269951540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Democracy slows down progress!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. in other news, scissors sharp.. fire hot.. water wet</p><p>But seriously.. when a huge number of people with completely different objectives and viewpoints have to agree for anything to happen.. stuff happens very slowly. Still, better than most alternatives..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Democracy slows down progress !
.. in other news , scissors sharp.. fire hot.. water wetBut seriously.. when a huge number of people with completely different objectives and viewpoints have to agree for anything to happen.. stuff happens very slowly .
Still , better than most alternatives. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Democracy slows down progress!
.. in other news, scissors sharp.. fire hot.. water wetBut seriously.. when a huge number of people with completely different objectives and viewpoints have to agree for anything to happen.. stuff happens very slowly.
Still, better than most alternatives..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680980</id>
	<title>More of the same</title>
	<author>sjdude</author>
	<datestamp>1269958860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First we have so-called scientists swearing we are heading for planetary collapse who are subsequently outed as having falsified their data to "prove" their hypothesis. Now we have another asshat scientist calling for a suspension of democracy so the so-called problem can be "solved". Maybe the first should be made to prove their hypothesis with verifiable 3rd party data. Maybe the second should STFU about politics and how to solve problems that haven't been scientifically proved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First we have so-called scientists swearing we are heading for planetary collapse who are subsequently outed as having falsified their data to " prove " their hypothesis .
Now we have another asshat scientist calling for a suspension of democracy so the so-called problem can be " solved " .
Maybe the first should be made to prove their hypothesis with verifiable 3rd party data .
Maybe the second should STFU about politics and how to solve problems that have n't been scientifically proved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First we have so-called scientists swearing we are heading for planetary collapse who are subsequently outed as having falsified their data to "prove" their hypothesis.
Now we have another asshat scientist calling for a suspension of democracy so the so-called problem can be "solved".
Maybe the first should be made to prove their hypothesis with verifiable 3rd party data.
Maybe the second should STFU about politics and how to solve problems that haven't been scientifically proved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31687592</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>david\_thornley</author>
	<datestamp>1270050060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
We shouldn't ban the party system, we should simply break it.  It relies on individual representation and first-past-the-post balloting.  It rests on the fundamental idea that one of the two party candidates will win almost all elections.  If you don't want the Republican to win, the safest thing is to vote Democrat.
</p><p>
What drove this home to me was the day after Jesse Ventura was elected governor (I live in Minnesota).  I heard so many people say "At least it wasn't" that day.  They weren't at all consistent about who it wasn't, but the common sentiment was obvious.  Both major parties had put forth candidates that were unacceptable to a large minority of the state.
</p><p>
What we need to break the two-party system is a way to vote against a major power candidate without voting for the other one, or in general any way to vote third-party and be effective.
</p><p>
I like some form of instant-runoff voting, which has been introduced in the city of Minneapolis.  I list three choices in descending order, and trailing candidates are eliminated and the ballots for them go to the next choice.  That way, it would start with me voting for my top two choices, regardless of party, and listing the candidate of the major party opposite the candidate I really don't want to win third.  Over time, this would lead to other parties and independents having more of a chance, and the decline of the two-party system.  I am aware that no voting system can be perfect, but I'm also aware that the current plurality system is worse than most.
</p><p>
Proportional voting can work for a legislative body, but it won't work for a separately elected executive.  Moreover, with more winners that are neither Democrat nor Republican, voting for the individual will become more attractive, and that's what you absolutely can't do in a proportional representation system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should n't ban the party system , we should simply break it .
It relies on individual representation and first-past-the-post balloting .
It rests on the fundamental idea that one of the two party candidates will win almost all elections .
If you do n't want the Republican to win , the safest thing is to vote Democrat .
What drove this home to me was the day after Jesse Ventura was elected governor ( I live in Minnesota ) .
I heard so many people say " At least it was n't " that day .
They were n't at all consistent about who it was n't , but the common sentiment was obvious .
Both major parties had put forth candidates that were unacceptable to a large minority of the state .
What we need to break the two-party system is a way to vote against a major power candidate without voting for the other one , or in general any way to vote third-party and be effective .
I like some form of instant-runoff voting , which has been introduced in the city of Minneapolis .
I list three choices in descending order , and trailing candidates are eliminated and the ballots for them go to the next choice .
That way , it would start with me voting for my top two choices , regardless of party , and listing the candidate of the major party opposite the candidate I really do n't want to win third .
Over time , this would lead to other parties and independents having more of a chance , and the decline of the two-party system .
I am aware that no voting system can be perfect , but I 'm also aware that the current plurality system is worse than most .
Proportional voting can work for a legislative body , but it wo n't work for a separately elected executive .
Moreover , with more winners that are neither Democrat nor Republican , voting for the individual will become more attractive , and that 's what you absolutely ca n't do in a proportional representation system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
We shouldn't ban the party system, we should simply break it.
It relies on individual representation and first-past-the-post balloting.
It rests on the fundamental idea that one of the two party candidates will win almost all elections.
If you don't want the Republican to win, the safest thing is to vote Democrat.
What drove this home to me was the day after Jesse Ventura was elected governor (I live in Minnesota).
I heard so many people say "At least it wasn't" that day.
They weren't at all consistent about who it wasn't, but the common sentiment was obvious.
Both major parties had put forth candidates that were unacceptable to a large minority of the state.
What we need to break the two-party system is a way to vote against a major power candidate without voting for the other one, or in general any way to vote third-party and be effective.
I like some form of instant-runoff voting, which has been introduced in the city of Minneapolis.
I list three choices in descending order, and trailing candidates are eliminated and the ballots for them go to the next choice.
That way, it would start with me voting for my top two choices, regardless of party, and listing the candidate of the major party opposite the candidate I really don't want to win third.
Over time, this would lead to other parties and independents having more of a chance, and the decline of the two-party system.
I am aware that no voting system can be perfect, but I'm also aware that the current plurality system is worse than most.
Proportional voting can work for a legislative body, but it won't work for a separately elected executive.
Moreover, with more winners that are neither Democrat nor Republican, voting for the individual will become more attractive, and that's what you absolutely can't do in a proportional representation system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680356</id>
	<title>Now.... there's an idea!</title>
	<author>jjh37997</author>
	<datestamp>1269955740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>FTA:</b> <i> He thinks only a catastrophic event would now persuade humanity to take the threat of climate change seriously enough, such as the collapse of a giant glacier in Antarctica, such as the Pine Island glacier, which would immediately push up sea level.</i>

<p>So.... how difficult and expensive would it be for someone to force the collapse of the Pine Island glacier? Is there anything we can do to covertly accelerate its collapse within say.... the next five years?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : He thinks only a catastrophic event would now persuade humanity to take the threat of climate change seriously enough , such as the collapse of a giant glacier in Antarctica , such as the Pine Island glacier , which would immediately push up sea level .
So.... how difficult and expensive would it be for someone to force the collapse of the Pine Island glacier ?
Is there anything we can do to covertly accelerate its collapse within say.... the next five years ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA:  He thinks only a catastrophic event would now persuade humanity to take the threat of climate change seriously enough, such as the collapse of a giant glacier in Antarctica, such as the Pine Island glacier, which would immediately push up sea level.
So.... how difficult and expensive would it be for someone to force the collapse of the Pine Island glacier?
Is there anything we can do to covertly accelerate its collapse within say.... the next five years?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680766</id>
	<title>Re:Which</title>
	<author>tgd</author>
	<datestamp>1269957720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just to head off the arguments, you're an idiot.</p><p>Not only did you just show you knee-jerked a reaction without reading the article, you knee-jerked a reaction against a science as firmly confirmed as the basic tenets of physics or chemistry, regardless of what the politicos on Fox might tell you.</p><p>Of course, Slashdot is full of armchair climatologists who think their high-school chemistry class and the algebra class they took makes them qualified to comment on climate change, even if they never even took a statistics class. So you got modded up a bit. Perhaps the moderators didn't read anything other than the blurb, either?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to head off the arguments , you 're an idiot.Not only did you just show you knee-jerked a reaction without reading the article , you knee-jerked a reaction against a science as firmly confirmed as the basic tenets of physics or chemistry , regardless of what the politicos on Fox might tell you.Of course , Slashdot is full of armchair climatologists who think their high-school chemistry class and the algebra class they took makes them qualified to comment on climate change , even if they never even took a statistics class .
So you got modded up a bit .
Perhaps the moderators did n't read anything other than the blurb , either ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to head off the arguments, you're an idiot.Not only did you just show you knee-jerked a reaction without reading the article, you knee-jerked a reaction against a science as firmly confirmed as the basic tenets of physics or chemistry, regardless of what the politicos on Fox might tell you.Of course, Slashdot is full of armchair climatologists who think their high-school chemistry class and the algebra class they took makes them qualified to comment on climate change, even if they never even took a statistics class.
So you got modded up a bit.
Perhaps the moderators didn't read anything other than the blurb, either?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679770</id>
	<title>The people want a solution, the powerful don't</title>
	<author>bigsexyjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1269953280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
He has this completely backwards.  The problem is not enough democracy.  If all the people of the were given a referendum to cut greenhouse gas production to protect the environment, it would easily win.
</p><p>
The powerful interests are the ones preventing anything from being done about climate change.  Suspending democracy won't work because there is no one to hand control of the world to who would work to overt climate catastrophe.</p><p>
However, the people of the world, particularly of the third world, do want to do every thing possible to save the environment.  So the answer is more democracy in both government and economic affairs.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He has this completely backwards .
The problem is not enough democracy .
If all the people of the were given a referendum to cut greenhouse gas production to protect the environment , it would easily win .
The powerful interests are the ones preventing anything from being done about climate change .
Suspending democracy wo n't work because there is no one to hand control of the world to who would work to overt climate catastrophe .
However , the people of the world , particularly of the third world , do want to do every thing possible to save the environment .
So the answer is more democracy in both government and economic affairs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
He has this completely backwards.
The problem is not enough democracy.
If all the people of the were given a referendum to cut greenhouse gas production to protect the environment, it would easily win.
The powerful interests are the ones preventing anything from being done about climate change.
Suspending democracy won't work because there is no one to hand control of the world to who would work to overt climate catastrophe.
However, the people of the world, particularly of the third world, do want to do every thing possible to save the environment.
So the answer is more democracy in both government and economic affairs.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680342</id>
	<title>Re:Let's go to the videotape</title>
	<author>Nimey</author>
	<datestamp>1269955740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it serves the poster's viewpoint much better if he's taken out of context.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it serves the poster 's viewpoint much better if he 's taken out of context .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it serves the poster's viewpoint much better if he's taken out of context.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31686620</id>
	<title>Give me liberty or give me death.</title>
	<author>mr\_java66</author>
	<datestamp>1270046040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would rather be free in a global meltdown with seas 1000 feet higher than today than a serf in anyone's utopia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would rather be free in a global meltdown with seas 1000 feet higher than today than a serf in anyone 's utopia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would rather be free in a global meltdown with seas 1000 feet higher than today than a serf in anyone's utopia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681124</id>
	<title>Re:I knew it</title>
	<author>Xyrus</author>
	<datestamp>1269959580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This whole 'carbon footprint' and 'green' malarky is just a way to make us feel bad about pretty much anything we do even though we might be able to afford it and so the eventual aim seems to be to usher in an authoritarian regime where everybody is given the absolute minimum necessary to survive.</p> </div><p>I think you misspelled corporatocracy.</p><p>The "green" malarky that you refer to is about finding a way to SUSTAIN ourselves. We are not sustaining, we are consuming (and at increasing rates). We are not replacing what we consume and recycling is still a far cry from where it needs to be. We will not be able to continue along our current path for much longer. The Earth does have limits and it really isn't too far in our future when we're going to hit those limits.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>These doomsday environmentalists are not helping the situation one bit - I am actually interested in renewable energy, electric cars and so on but each time one of these guys opens their mouth I feel like jumping into the car and pouring 70 litres of petrol into the tank while I'm still allowed, you know.</p></div><p>Out of spite? One person does not a quorom make.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Before we are all thrown into a supermassive apartment block and given only rice crackers and water to live off. If we are lucky they might allow us a single CFL in our cell and the very obedient are allowed a recycled netbook with Google Chrome OS or similar Web-only OS.</p> </div><p>What are you talking about? We've got a single planet. Just one. We've got only so many resources. A wise species, upon realizing this, would IMMEDIATELY begin work on coming up with ways to sustain their race for the long haul, not spend through resources like drunken sailors (or RNC members at a strip club). And only the naive think they can have their cake and eat it too.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Meanwhile the politicians and scientists behind this regime will obviously be livin' the good live on some island with all the fuel and personal freedom they could possibly ever think of asking for.</p></div><p>O\_o</p><p>Loosen the tin foil hat buddy. Their is no regime. There is no conspiracy. There are fringe groups (Green Peace, Drill baby Drill), but the vast majority of people of people concerned about the environment are thinking about the future. Not just their immediate future but the future hundreds of years from now.</p><p>Now, technology might be developed to allay all concerns but what will the price of that be. How far can we go before nature really starts putting the hurt on us? How many thousands or millions get to suffer before we finally start taking our sustainability seriously? Perhaps not many, or perhaps we'll be looking at a global "French Revolution" style event when the poor unwashed masses finally get fed up.</p><p>~X~</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole 'carbon footprint ' and 'green ' malarky is just a way to make us feel bad about pretty much anything we do even though we might be able to afford it and so the eventual aim seems to be to usher in an authoritarian regime where everybody is given the absolute minimum necessary to survive .
I think you misspelled corporatocracy.The " green " malarky that you refer to is about finding a way to SUSTAIN ourselves .
We are not sustaining , we are consuming ( and at increasing rates ) .
We are not replacing what we consume and recycling is still a far cry from where it needs to be .
We will not be able to continue along our current path for much longer .
The Earth does have limits and it really is n't too far in our future when we 're going to hit those limits.These doomsday environmentalists are not helping the situation one bit - I am actually interested in renewable energy , electric cars and so on but each time one of these guys opens their mouth I feel like jumping into the car and pouring 70 litres of petrol into the tank while I 'm still allowed , you know.Out of spite ?
One person does not a quorom make.Before we are all thrown into a supermassive apartment block and given only rice crackers and water to live off .
If we are lucky they might allow us a single CFL in our cell and the very obedient are allowed a recycled netbook with Google Chrome OS or similar Web-only OS .
What are you talking about ?
We 've got a single planet .
Just one .
We 've got only so many resources .
A wise species , upon realizing this , would IMMEDIATELY begin work on coming up with ways to sustain their race for the long haul , not spend through resources like drunken sailors ( or RNC members at a strip club ) .
And only the naive think they can have their cake and eat it too.Meanwhile the politicians and scientists behind this regime will obviously be livin ' the good live on some island with all the fuel and personal freedom they could possibly ever think of asking for.O \ _oLoosen the tin foil hat buddy .
Their is no regime .
There is no conspiracy .
There are fringe groups ( Green Peace , Drill baby Drill ) , but the vast majority of people of people concerned about the environment are thinking about the future .
Not just their immediate future but the future hundreds of years from now.Now , technology might be developed to allay all concerns but what will the price of that be .
How far can we go before nature really starts putting the hurt on us ?
How many thousands or millions get to suffer before we finally start taking our sustainability seriously ?
Perhaps not many , or perhaps we 'll be looking at a global " French Revolution " style event when the poor unwashed masses finally get fed up. ~ X ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole 'carbon footprint' and 'green' malarky is just a way to make us feel bad about pretty much anything we do even though we might be able to afford it and so the eventual aim seems to be to usher in an authoritarian regime where everybody is given the absolute minimum necessary to survive.
I think you misspelled corporatocracy.The "green" malarky that you refer to is about finding a way to SUSTAIN ourselves.
We are not sustaining, we are consuming (and at increasing rates).
We are not replacing what we consume and recycling is still a far cry from where it needs to be.
We will not be able to continue along our current path for much longer.
The Earth does have limits and it really isn't too far in our future when we're going to hit those limits.These doomsday environmentalists are not helping the situation one bit - I am actually interested in renewable energy, electric cars and so on but each time one of these guys opens their mouth I feel like jumping into the car and pouring 70 litres of petrol into the tank while I'm still allowed, you know.Out of spite?
One person does not a quorom make.Before we are all thrown into a supermassive apartment block and given only rice crackers and water to live off.
If we are lucky they might allow us a single CFL in our cell and the very obedient are allowed a recycled netbook with Google Chrome OS or similar Web-only OS.
What are you talking about?
We've got a single planet.
Just one.
We've got only so many resources.
A wise species, upon realizing this, would IMMEDIATELY begin work on coming up with ways to sustain their race for the long haul, not spend through resources like drunken sailors (or RNC members at a strip club).
And only the naive think they can have their cake and eat it too.Meanwhile the politicians and scientists behind this regime will obviously be livin' the good live on some island with all the fuel and personal freedom they could possibly ever think of asking for.O\_oLoosen the tin foil hat buddy.
Their is no regime.
There is no conspiracy.
There are fringe groups (Green Peace, Drill baby Drill), but the vast majority of people of people concerned about the environment are thinking about the future.
Not just their immediate future but the future hundreds of years from now.Now, technology might be developed to allay all concerns but what will the price of that be.
How far can we go before nature really starts putting the hurt on us?
How many thousands or millions get to suffer before we finally start taking our sustainability seriously?
Perhaps not many, or perhaps we'll be looking at a global "French Revolution" style event when the poor unwashed masses finally get fed up.~X~
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31684156</id>
	<title>Read TFA! The summary is awful.</title>
	<author>slashbart</author>
	<datestamp>1270068720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of all the shit slashdot summaries, this one must be about the worst. It's so much not representative of the article that it's pretty much a lie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of all the shit slashdot summaries , this one must be about the worst .
It 's so much not representative of the article that it 's pretty much a lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of all the shit slashdot summaries, this one must be about the worst.
It's so much not representative of the article that it's pretty much a lie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680856</id>
	<title>Re:I sense a great disturbance in the Force...</title>
	<author>tgd</author>
	<datestamp>1269958200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The people you refer to are not skeptics. They're neo-skeptics, a massive upswelling of people (at least here in the US) who think being "intellectual" or a "skeptic" means accepting pretty much any claim made by someone who feigns authority claiming the masses are being mislead by (insert authority figure here). The global warming "skeptics" are in that crowd, as are the (strangely congruent) creationists, gun owners who were convinced Obama would take their guns, dimwits like Jenny McCarthy who insisted vaccines caused autism, or any of a thousand other over-popularized examples around the world today.</p><p>That is not skepticism. That's faith and dogmatism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The people you refer to are not skeptics .
They 're neo-skeptics , a massive upswelling of people ( at least here in the US ) who think being " intellectual " or a " skeptic " means accepting pretty much any claim made by someone who feigns authority claiming the masses are being mislead by ( insert authority figure here ) .
The global warming " skeptics " are in that crowd , as are the ( strangely congruent ) creationists , gun owners who were convinced Obama would take their guns , dimwits like Jenny McCarthy who insisted vaccines caused autism , or any of a thousand other over-popularized examples around the world today.That is not skepticism .
That 's faith and dogmatism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people you refer to are not skeptics.
They're neo-skeptics, a massive upswelling of people (at least here in the US) who think being "intellectual" or a "skeptic" means accepting pretty much any claim made by someone who feigns authority claiming the masses are being mislead by (insert authority figure here).
The global warming "skeptics" are in that crowd, as are the (strangely congruent) creationists, gun owners who were convinced Obama would take their guns, dimwits like Jenny McCarthy who insisted vaccines caused autism, or any of a thousand other over-popularized examples around the world today.That is not skepticism.
That's faith and dogmatism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679690</id>
	<title>Crackpot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This guy has lost the plot. First nuclear power as a way to save the planet. Now 'putting democracy on hold' to achieve the same goal.</p><p>Now, I'm under no illusions as to the state of our alleged democracy: we don't have one. We are wage slaves who delegate our power to representatives of the ruling class. But do we really want to be 'officially' handing over the keys like this?</p><p>Surely the only way to achieve the kind of world-wide change we need is a world-wide democratic revolution ( and no, I'm not talking about American / Western style democracy, but REAL democracy ). Bring on the TRULY democratic, one-world government!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy has lost the plot .
First nuclear power as a way to save the planet .
Now 'putting democracy on hold ' to achieve the same goal.Now , I 'm under no illusions as to the state of our alleged democracy : we do n't have one .
We are wage slaves who delegate our power to representatives of the ruling class .
But do we really want to be 'officially ' handing over the keys like this ? Surely the only way to achieve the kind of world-wide change we need is a world-wide democratic revolution ( and no , I 'm not talking about American / Western style democracy , but REAL democracy ) .
Bring on the TRULY democratic , one-world government !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy has lost the plot.
First nuclear power as a way to save the planet.
Now 'putting democracy on hold' to achieve the same goal.Now, I'm under no illusions as to the state of our alleged democracy: we don't have one.
We are wage slaves who delegate our power to representatives of the ruling class.
But do we really want to be 'officially' handing over the keys like this?Surely the only way to achieve the kind of world-wide change we need is a world-wide democratic revolution ( and no, I'm not talking about American / Western style democracy, but REAL democracy ).
Bring on the TRULY democratic, one-world government!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679794</id>
	<title>Who's going to bell the cat named the USA?</title>
	<author>mangastudent</author>
	<datestamp>1269953340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've got the world's most capable military by a <i>very</i> large margin, more than half our citizens own guns and know how to use them (to quote the Japanease Admiral, a rifle behind every blade of grass), etc. etc. etc....

</p><p>Only an egghead from a country that started to disarm it's <i>subjects</i> almost a century ago (the Bolshevik revolution terrified the U.K. ruling class) could suggest such lunacy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've got the world 's most capable military by a very large margin , more than half our citizens own guns and know how to use them ( to quote the Japanease Admiral , a rifle behind every blade of grass ) , etc .
etc. etc... . Only an egghead from a country that started to disarm it 's subjects almost a century ago ( the Bolshevik revolution terrified the U.K. ruling class ) could suggest such lunacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've got the world's most capable military by a very large margin, more than half our citizens own guns and know how to use them (to quote the Japanease Admiral, a rifle behind every blade of grass), etc.
etc. etc....

Only an egghead from a country that started to disarm it's subjects almost a century ago (the Bolshevik revolution terrified the U.K. ruling class) could suggest such lunacy.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681530</id>
	<title>I actually had the opposite idea...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269961560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't we suspend all this carbon-neutrality non-sense for a few years so we can rebuild America's constitutional republic? America will collapse under the current tacked-on socialist programs much faster than the Earth will come to any serious harm at the hands of people breathing and driving to work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't we suspend all this carbon-neutrality non-sense for a few years so we can rebuild America 's constitutional republic ?
America will collapse under the current tacked-on socialist programs much faster than the Earth will come to any serious harm at the hands of people breathing and driving to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't we suspend all this carbon-neutrality non-sense for a few years so we can rebuild America's constitutional republic?
America will collapse under the current tacked-on socialist programs much faster than the Earth will come to any serious harm at the hands of people breathing and driving to work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31687702</id>
	<title>Democracy or the tyrantiest tyrants</title>
	<author>bobvious</author>
	<datestamp>1270050480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've heard for over a decade that when the Soviet Union fell that the communists migrated into the environmentalist movement. Maybe, and that would seem to be a relatively harmless place to keep them. Now with a grand attempt by environmentalists to wrest power from the industrialized nations via carbon taxes, and proven fabrications in data regarding climate change, and Dr. Lovelock here also on the side of doing away with democracy, it doesn't seem like such a silly thing after all. <br>
<br>
Mankind has waded through millennia of rule by bullies, mafia type kings, religiously ordained kings, generals into kings, pick your poison of absolutist tyrant, etc. to finally obtain a somewhat working democracy.  234 years ago there was only one democracy.  Now there are over 170.  It may not be the perfect government, but I suspect there is no perfect government when imperfect people are involved.<br>
<br>
Given the alternatives we've seen in the 20th century, I'll stick with democracy or republics for a while.  We haven't given them nearly enough time to work the kinks out yet. Nothing else ever worked the kinks out either, even with hundreds or thousands of years to work things out. Communism is just subjugating yourself to another tyrant... the tyrantiest tyrant of a group of tyrants, just like it used to be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've heard for over a decade that when the Soviet Union fell that the communists migrated into the environmentalist movement .
Maybe , and that would seem to be a relatively harmless place to keep them .
Now with a grand attempt by environmentalists to wrest power from the industrialized nations via carbon taxes , and proven fabrications in data regarding climate change , and Dr. Lovelock here also on the side of doing away with democracy , it does n't seem like such a silly thing after all .
Mankind has waded through millennia of rule by bullies , mafia type kings , religiously ordained kings , generals into kings , pick your poison of absolutist tyrant , etc .
to finally obtain a somewhat working democracy .
234 years ago there was only one democracy .
Now there are over 170 .
It may not be the perfect government , but I suspect there is no perfect government when imperfect people are involved .
Given the alternatives we 've seen in the 20th century , I 'll stick with democracy or republics for a while .
We have n't given them nearly enough time to work the kinks out yet .
Nothing else ever worked the kinks out either , even with hundreds or thousands of years to work things out .
Communism is just subjugating yourself to another tyrant... the tyrantiest tyrant of a group of tyrants , just like it used to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've heard for over a decade that when the Soviet Union fell that the communists migrated into the environmentalist movement.
Maybe, and that would seem to be a relatively harmless place to keep them.
Now with a grand attempt by environmentalists to wrest power from the industrialized nations via carbon taxes, and proven fabrications in data regarding climate change, and Dr. Lovelock here also on the side of doing away with democracy, it doesn't seem like such a silly thing after all.
Mankind has waded through millennia of rule by bullies, mafia type kings, religiously ordained kings, generals into kings, pick your poison of absolutist tyrant, etc.
to finally obtain a somewhat working democracy.
234 years ago there was only one democracy.
Now there are over 170.
It may not be the perfect government, but I suspect there is no perfect government when imperfect people are involved.
Given the alternatives we've seen in the 20th century, I'll stick with democracy or republics for a while.
We haven't given them nearly enough time to work the kinks out yet.
Nothing else ever worked the kinks out either, even with hundreds or thousands of years to work things out.
Communism is just subjugating yourself to another tyrant... the tyrantiest tyrant of a group of tyrants, just like it used to be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682776</id>
	<title>So let's discuss things that won't happen</title>
	<author>aztektum</author>
	<datestamp>1269969540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it's because I'm reading V for Vendetta right now, but I'd imagine in such a NWO he'd be one of the first people shot behind the chemical sheds. They wouldn't want "radicals" trying to destabilize things, would they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's because I 'm reading V for Vendetta right now , but I 'd imagine in such a NWO he 'd be one of the first people shot behind the chemical sheds .
They would n't want " radicals " trying to destabilize things , would they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's because I'm reading V for Vendetta right now, but I'd imagine in such a NWO he'd be one of the first people shot behind the chemical sheds.
They wouldn't want "radicals" trying to destabilize things, would they?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679986</id>
	<title>Just so we're clear</title>
	<author>Shadow Wrought</author>
	<datestamp>1269954300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd rather perish in a Democracy than survive in a Dictatorship, no matter how benevolent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather perish in a Democracy than survive in a Dictatorship , no matter how benevolent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather perish in a Democracy than survive in a Dictatorship, no matter how benevolent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679748</id>
	<title>I'm not defending the statement...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269953160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... which I think is tone-deaf and stupid, and will instantly be used by the truly rabid anti-climate-change "skeptic" types as evidence that the entire environmental movement is a secret plan to institute world government.  The fact that this claim will be total horseshit won't stop them for a second --- it never does.</p><p>The guy is 90 years old, he's probably got a different perspective on things, and anyway he doesn't represent most people's feelings on the matter.</p><p>That said, there is one element of truth to what he's saying: namely that if the $hit really does hit the fan (e.g., a major climactic catastrophe, or confirmation that the clathrate feeback look really is happening), things like democracy and the healthy free market are going to be severely endangered.  When a society is fighting for its survival, niceties like that are often the first thing to go.  And in case you don't follow me, I'm saying that this is a <i>bad</i> thing, and the best way to avoid it is to deal with the problem in an intelligent, conservative way (cutting emissions now).</p><p>If nothing else, you can expect a massive decline in our standard of living if human-caused climate change is strongly confirmed in a couple of decades (and it will be, I suspect) and we have to come up with some crazy last-minute mitigation plan.</p><p>I would have a different feeling about this if the anti-climate-change side was offering some kind of reassuring science to counter what the majority of climate scientists are finding, but they're not.  Mostly we're getting horseshit like misinterpreted emails.  And if a movement with so many followers (and billions in fossil-fuel profits) can't offer anything better than that, you should be scared.  Really scared.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... which I think is tone-deaf and stupid , and will instantly be used by the truly rabid anti-climate-change " skeptic " types as evidence that the entire environmental movement is a secret plan to institute world government .
The fact that this claim will be total horseshit wo n't stop them for a second --- it never does.The guy is 90 years old , he 's probably got a different perspective on things , and anyway he does n't represent most people 's feelings on the matter.That said , there is one element of truth to what he 's saying : namely that if the $ hit really does hit the fan ( e.g. , a major climactic catastrophe , or confirmation that the clathrate feeback look really is happening ) , things like democracy and the healthy free market are going to be severely endangered .
When a society is fighting for its survival , niceties like that are often the first thing to go .
And in case you do n't follow me , I 'm saying that this is a bad thing , and the best way to avoid it is to deal with the problem in an intelligent , conservative way ( cutting emissions now ) .If nothing else , you can expect a massive decline in our standard of living if human-caused climate change is strongly confirmed in a couple of decades ( and it will be , I suspect ) and we have to come up with some crazy last-minute mitigation plan.I would have a different feeling about this if the anti-climate-change side was offering some kind of reassuring science to counter what the majority of climate scientists are finding , but they 're not .
Mostly we 're getting horseshit like misinterpreted emails .
And if a movement with so many followers ( and billions in fossil-fuel profits ) ca n't offer anything better than that , you should be scared .
Really scared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... which I think is tone-deaf and stupid, and will instantly be used by the truly rabid anti-climate-change "skeptic" types as evidence that the entire environmental movement is a secret plan to institute world government.
The fact that this claim will be total horseshit won't stop them for a second --- it never does.The guy is 90 years old, he's probably got a different perspective on things, and anyway he doesn't represent most people's feelings on the matter.That said, there is one element of truth to what he's saying: namely that if the $hit really does hit the fan (e.g., a major climactic catastrophe, or confirmation that the clathrate feeback look really is happening), things like democracy and the healthy free market are going to be severely endangered.
When a society is fighting for its survival, niceties like that are often the first thing to go.
And in case you don't follow me, I'm saying that this is a bad thing, and the best way to avoid it is to deal with the problem in an intelligent, conservative way (cutting emissions now).If nothing else, you can expect a massive decline in our standard of living if human-caused climate change is strongly confirmed in a couple of decades (and it will be, I suspect) and we have to come up with some crazy last-minute mitigation plan.I would have a different feeling about this if the anti-climate-change side was offering some kind of reassuring science to counter what the majority of climate scientists are finding, but they're not.
Mostly we're getting horseshit like misinterpreted emails.
And if a movement with so many followers (and billions in fossil-fuel profits) can't offer anything better than that, you should be scared.
Really scared.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679590</id>
	<title>I thought we needed to put democracy on hold</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To fight terrorist porn. Or was it child terrorism?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To fight terrorist porn .
Or was it child terrorism ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To fight terrorist porn.
Or was it child terrorism?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680558</id>
	<title>KILL all LIFEs on Earth : we are cleverer than GOD</title>
	<author>kentsin</author>
	<datestamp>1269956580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What next is to kill all humen.</p><p>Freedom, respect.</p><p>I suggest we take a good look into the history of our plannet's weather history. The ice age did not kill us all, why a climate change would kill us all? We are going to against the weather, so some small group of "clever" engineers can determine all life's future?</p><p>Is the current "GREEN" movement based on solid foundation? Or it is just been hijack by urge of "controlling the words"? Please read On Bullshit  http://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122946</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What next is to kill all humen.Freedom , respect.I suggest we take a good look into the history of our plannet 's weather history .
The ice age did not kill us all , why a climate change would kill us all ?
We are going to against the weather , so some small group of " clever " engineers can determine all life 's future ? Is the current " GREEN " movement based on solid foundation ?
Or it is just been hijack by urge of " controlling the words " ?
Please read On Bullshit http : //www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122946</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What next is to kill all humen.Freedom, respect.I suggest we take a good look into the history of our plannet's weather history.
The ice age did not kill us all, why a climate change would kill us all?
We are going to against the weather, so some small group of "clever" engineers can determine all life's future?Is the current "GREEN" movement based on solid foundation?
Or it is just been hijack by urge of "controlling the words"?
Please read On Bullshit  http://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122946</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680466</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269956160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here in the US, we don't have democracy now.  We have a two party, democratic REPUBLIC.</p></div><p>Of course we live in a democracy. How else do we select our representatives? The stupid democracy vs. republic terminology argument is right-wing FUD to make "Republicans" seem more legitimate than "Democrats".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in the US , we do n't have democracy now .
We have a two party , democratic REPUBLIC.Of course we live in a democracy .
How else do we select our representatives ?
The stupid democracy vs. republic terminology argument is right-wing FUD to make " Republicans " seem more legitimate than " Democrats " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in the US, we don't have democracy now.
We have a two party, democratic REPUBLIC.Of course we live in a democracy.
How else do we select our representatives?
The stupid democracy vs. republic terminology argument is right-wing FUD to make "Republicans" seem more legitimate than "Democrats".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681840</id>
	<title>Democracy is giving us want we want</title>
	<author>alexibu</author>
	<datestamp>1269963240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Democracy is really good for giving the people what they want, which is really successful in peace time.<br>
Unfortunately in this case where a problem is so large we need to get on a planetary war footing, but what they want is willful/plausable ignorance of the subject.<br>
Politicians and the media are forced to supply, untill things get really bad, and then history shows capable leaders will turn up.<br>
I doubt Winston Churchill would have been elected in peace time.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately the dynamics of the climate and the masking by aerosols of the magnitude of the forcing mean that if we wait for things to get even worse with a few more years of willful decadent opulent ignorance, then we are commiting to some far worse problems after we start to take drastic action. The magnitude of these problems depends on which model of ocean mixing is accurate and where in those fat error bars the value of aerosol forcing turns out to be. On top of that there is the potential for tipping points that could arrive before or after we start to take action.<br>
<br>
Any sensible person with this information would have to say act now.<br>
Better to stick with denial.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Democracy is really good for giving the people what they want , which is really successful in peace time .
Unfortunately in this case where a problem is so large we need to get on a planetary war footing , but what they want is willful/plausable ignorance of the subject .
Politicians and the media are forced to supply , untill things get really bad , and then history shows capable leaders will turn up .
I doubt Winston Churchill would have been elected in peace time .
Unfortunately the dynamics of the climate and the masking by aerosols of the magnitude of the forcing mean that if we wait for things to get even worse with a few more years of willful decadent opulent ignorance , then we are commiting to some far worse problems after we start to take drastic action .
The magnitude of these problems depends on which model of ocean mixing is accurate and where in those fat error bars the value of aerosol forcing turns out to be .
On top of that there is the potential for tipping points that could arrive before or after we start to take action .
Any sensible person with this information would have to say act now .
Better to stick with denial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Democracy is really good for giving the people what they want, which is really successful in peace time.
Unfortunately in this case where a problem is so large we need to get on a planetary war footing, but what they want is willful/plausable ignorance of the subject.
Politicians and the media are forced to supply, untill things get really bad, and then history shows capable leaders will turn up.
I doubt Winston Churchill would have been elected in peace time.
Unfortunately the dynamics of the climate and the masking by aerosols of the magnitude of the forcing mean that if we wait for things to get even worse with a few more years of willful decadent opulent ignorance, then we are commiting to some far worse problems after we start to take drastic action.
The magnitude of these problems depends on which model of ocean mixing is accurate and where in those fat error bars the value of aerosol forcing turns out to be.
On top of that there is the potential for tipping points that could arrive before or after we start to take action.
Any sensible person with this information would have to say act now.
Better to stick with denial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681396</id>
	<title>Furthermore...</title>
	<author>ProteusQ</author>
	<datestamp>1269960780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lovelock stated that, once the planet had been saved, it would be time for a good spanking.  "Yes," he declared, "we must all have a good spanking!"</p><p>Lovelock later apologized and said that once he started fantasizing, he found it hard to stop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lovelock stated that , once the planet had been saved , it would be time for a good spanking .
" Yes , " he declared , " we must all have a good spanking !
" Lovelock later apologized and said that once he started fantasizing , he found it hard to stop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lovelock stated that, once the planet had been saved, it would be time for a good spanking.
"Yes," he declared, "we must all have a good spanking!
"Lovelock later apologized and said that once he started fantasizing, he found it hard to stop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682270</id>
	<title>rest of the world</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269965880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are they going to put communism and dictatorships on hold as well?</p><p>A large part of the world is not democratic. How are you going to convince the leaders of China etc to go along with this?</p><p>A large part of OPEC are dictatorships, and if their governments fell, the most likely replacement would be radical islamic extremists. I doubt that peak oil and greenhouse gases are mentioned in the Koran.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are they going to put communism and dictatorships on hold as well ? A large part of the world is not democratic .
How are you going to convince the leaders of China etc to go along with this ? A large part of OPEC are dictatorships , and if their governments fell , the most likely replacement would be radical islamic extremists .
I doubt that peak oil and greenhouse gases are mentioned in the Koran .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are they going to put communism and dictatorships on hold as well?A large part of the world is not democratic.
How are you going to convince the leaders of China etc to go along with this?A large part of OPEC are dictatorships, and if their governments fell, the most likely replacement would be radical islamic extremists.
I doubt that peak oil and greenhouse gases are mentioned in the Koran.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680106</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1269954780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Here in the US, we don't have democracy now. We have a two party, democratic REPUBLIC. The politicians can pretty much do whatever they want after they have been elected because the media has conditioned us to believe that we have only two parties from which to choose (i.e. - "bipartisan").</i> </p><p>The two party system in the states has its beginnings in the divide between mercantile Hamilton and the agrarian Jefferson in Washington's first Administration.</p><p>"Party discipline" doesn't exist in the states as any European or Canadian would understand it.</p><p>The major parties are loosely bound coalitions based on issues, geography, personalities and so on. But a loosely bound coalition can be remarkably enduring and effective.</p><p>The third party in the states forms around a single issue or set of issues and a lone charismatic leader - when one or the other are extinguished, the party dies as well.</p><p>In American culture, three is the unlucky number. The also-ran.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in the US , we do n't have democracy now .
We have a two party , democratic REPUBLIC .
The politicians can pretty much do whatever they want after they have been elected because the media has conditioned us to believe that we have only two parties from which to choose ( i.e .
- " bipartisan " ) .
The two party system in the states has its beginnings in the divide between mercantile Hamilton and the agrarian Jefferson in Washington 's first Administration .
" Party discipline " does n't exist in the states as any European or Canadian would understand it.The major parties are loosely bound coalitions based on issues , geography , personalities and so on .
But a loosely bound coalition can be remarkably enduring and effective.The third party in the states forms around a single issue or set of issues and a lone charismatic leader - when one or the other are extinguished , the party dies as well.In American culture , three is the unlucky number .
The also-ran .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in the US, we don't have democracy now.
We have a two party, democratic REPUBLIC.
The politicians can pretty much do whatever they want after they have been elected because the media has conditioned us to believe that we have only two parties from which to choose (i.e.
- "bipartisan").
The two party system in the states has its beginnings in the divide between mercantile Hamilton and the agrarian Jefferson in Washington's first Administration.
"Party discipline" doesn't exist in the states as any European or Canadian would understand it.The major parties are loosely bound coalitions based on issues, geography, personalities and so on.
But a loosely bound coalition can be remarkably enduring and effective.The third party in the states forms around a single issue or set of issues and a lone charismatic leader - when one or the other are extinguished, the party dies as well.In American culture, three is the unlucky number.
The also-ran.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679732</id>
	<title>It's Already Happened - See EU and UN</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269953100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The EU and UN are run by unelected officials and they're already pushing the "manmade global warming" propeganda pretty hard.  Why is he suggesting them after it has already been done?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EU and UN are run by unelected officials and they 're already pushing the " manmade global warming " propeganda pretty hard .
Why is he suggesting them after it has already been done ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EU and UN are run by unelected officials and they're already pushing the "manmade global warming" propeganda pretty hard.
Why is he suggesting them after it has already been done?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680530</id>
	<title>make me freeeee</title>
	<author>dogen</author>
	<datestamp>1269956460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want to free from democracy's phony bullshit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to free from democracy 's phony bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to free from democracy's phony bullshit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680942</id>
	<title>As if</title>
	<author>Thaelon</author>
	<datestamp>1269958680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As if we actually have democracy, anywhere.</p><p>Most nations are a plutocracy disguised as a republic, and sold to the public as a democracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As if we actually have democracy , anywhere.Most nations are a plutocracy disguised as a republic , and sold to the public as a democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As if we actually have democracy, anywhere.Most nations are a plutocracy disguised as a republic, and sold to the public as a democracy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680476</id>
	<title>Wackjob</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269956220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nuff Said!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuff Said !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuff Said!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679810</id>
	<title>Re:Electorate afraid to lose their "Lifestyle"</title>
	<author>CorporateSuit</author>
	<datestamp>1269953400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I told you tomorrow that it would rain toads.  Such a fierce toadstorm, you would WISH that water was coming down on you... and then tomorrow, there is nothing but sunshine -- hardly a cloud in the sky -- and I told you that my predictive model was right!  It may not have been toads, but it was NOT water that was precipitated, rather sunshine! (just as I predicted) and I've got city, state, and federal governments all lobbying to force a "toad tax" and "toad insurance" upon all their citizens, every science book in the world claiming that it will rain toads on us all, and my book "Toads: The True Threat of Technology!" nets me a nobel peace prize -- would I be following the scientific method?  Where did it go wrong?<br> <br>
Why is it so important that my model predicted an incorrect weather pattern if my model was designed to predict a weather pattern?  Does "the complete opposite of what happened" count as undeniable proof in scientific predictions nowadays?<br> <br>
If Human-caused climate change was a 2nd grade science project, it would get an F for its results.  "Predicted major hurricane season.  Weakest hurricane season in decades.  Perhaps my model was incorrect, but ALL the assumptions it was based on are correct!  Haters gonna hate."<br> <br>
It's not a healthy thing to champion or force other people to follow.  It's an embarrassment to reason.  Until we KNOW what we're getting into with climate change, we can continue to focus research on it, but our EFFORTS should be focused on what we ARE damaging in full conscience.  For example: come up with a better way to get fresh water to our cities, and clean it up before sending it back to the environment!  We're still children with shotguns when it comes to the Earth's climate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I told you tomorrow that it would rain toads .
Such a fierce toadstorm , you would WISH that water was coming down on you... and then tomorrow , there is nothing but sunshine -- hardly a cloud in the sky -- and I told you that my predictive model was right !
It may not have been toads , but it was NOT water that was precipitated , rather sunshine !
( just as I predicted ) and I 've got city , state , and federal governments all lobbying to force a " toad tax " and " toad insurance " upon all their citizens , every science book in the world claiming that it will rain toads on us all , and my book " Toads : The True Threat of Technology !
" nets me a nobel peace prize -- would I be following the scientific method ?
Where did it go wrong ?
Why is it so important that my model predicted an incorrect weather pattern if my model was designed to predict a weather pattern ?
Does " the complete opposite of what happened " count as undeniable proof in scientific predictions nowadays ?
If Human-caused climate change was a 2nd grade science project , it would get an F for its results .
" Predicted major hurricane season .
Weakest hurricane season in decades .
Perhaps my model was incorrect , but ALL the assumptions it was based on are correct !
Haters gon na hate .
" It 's not a healthy thing to champion or force other people to follow .
It 's an embarrassment to reason .
Until we KNOW what we 're getting into with climate change , we can continue to focus research on it , but our EFFORTS should be focused on what we ARE damaging in full conscience .
For example : come up with a better way to get fresh water to our cities , and clean it up before sending it back to the environment !
We 're still children with shotguns when it comes to the Earth 's climate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I told you tomorrow that it would rain toads.
Such a fierce toadstorm, you would WISH that water was coming down on you... and then tomorrow, there is nothing but sunshine -- hardly a cloud in the sky -- and I told you that my predictive model was right!
It may not have been toads, but it was NOT water that was precipitated, rather sunshine!
(just as I predicted) and I've got city, state, and federal governments all lobbying to force a "toad tax" and "toad insurance" upon all their citizens, every science book in the world claiming that it will rain toads on us all, and my book "Toads: The True Threat of Technology!
" nets me a nobel peace prize -- would I be following the scientific method?
Where did it go wrong?
Why is it so important that my model predicted an incorrect weather pattern if my model was designed to predict a weather pattern?
Does "the complete opposite of what happened" count as undeniable proof in scientific predictions nowadays?
If Human-caused climate change was a 2nd grade science project, it would get an F for its results.
"Predicted major hurricane season.
Weakest hurricane season in decades.
Perhaps my model was incorrect, but ALL the assumptions it was based on are correct!
Haters gonna hate.
" 
It's not a healthy thing to champion or force other people to follow.
It's an embarrassment to reason.
Until we KNOW what we're getting into with climate change, we can continue to focus research on it, but our EFFORTS should be focused on what we ARE damaging in full conscience.
For example: come up with a better way to get fresh water to our cities, and clean it up before sending it back to the environment!
We're still children with shotguns when it comes to the Earth's climate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679490</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31684410</id>
	<title>1984</title>
	<author>et3rn1ty</author>
	<datestamp>1270027920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rousseau explains in the Social Contract how a body of people can not give up their freedom and their rights, even voluntarily.  The act is considered invalid, as the moment one gives up his rights can't be considered sane, and therefore his rights must be given back to him, his fate to be decided by someone else. Since though there is no one else that can decide for someone else's rights, every one of us is, in one way, "forced" to accept our civil rights and live with them. Even if such an act was possible, it is valid only for the period of the person's life. The rights of freedom, equality and life are owned by people from the moment they are born, so a newborn is born free!

Those that have read George Orwell's 1984 know that democracy has, to some extend, already been "put on hold", from the moment that people are forced to live among cameras and experience body searches to travel from one country to another, even between trusted countries like in the EU. It's only the illusion of democracy and the illusion of rights that we still have when we are born. The constitution gives you the right to vote, and the government can't take it away from you. But they can make you not want to vote, and that's what they do. In the US they have like 50\% of the country's voters not voting. In Greece here, we had 35\%. Both percentages are terrifying. Pericles said that he who doesn't get involved in the matters of the state isn't just indifferent but an enemy, a "villain" as he puts it.

The only way to get real hold of your rights is, as stated above, to become educated. Only then are you a real threat to the governors of the place and only a government that is afraid of its people is able to act on their behalf. Giving up your rights voluntarily is just what they want you to do. But what was gained by the French revolution and the european renaissance can not be taken away from us neither by force nor "voluntarily".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rousseau explains in the Social Contract how a body of people can not give up their freedom and their rights , even voluntarily .
The act is considered invalid , as the moment one gives up his rights ca n't be considered sane , and therefore his rights must be given back to him , his fate to be decided by someone else .
Since though there is no one else that can decide for someone else 's rights , every one of us is , in one way , " forced " to accept our civil rights and live with them .
Even if such an act was possible , it is valid only for the period of the person 's life .
The rights of freedom , equality and life are owned by people from the moment they are born , so a newborn is born free !
Those that have read George Orwell 's 1984 know that democracy has , to some extend , already been " put on hold " , from the moment that people are forced to live among cameras and experience body searches to travel from one country to another , even between trusted countries like in the EU .
It 's only the illusion of democracy and the illusion of rights that we still have when we are born .
The constitution gives you the right to vote , and the government ca n't take it away from you .
But they can make you not want to vote , and that 's what they do .
In the US they have like 50 \ % of the country 's voters not voting .
In Greece here , we had 35 \ % .
Both percentages are terrifying .
Pericles said that he who does n't get involved in the matters of the state is n't just indifferent but an enemy , a " villain " as he puts it .
The only way to get real hold of your rights is , as stated above , to become educated .
Only then are you a real threat to the governors of the place and only a government that is afraid of its people is able to act on their behalf .
Giving up your rights voluntarily is just what they want you to do .
But what was gained by the French revolution and the european renaissance can not be taken away from us neither by force nor " voluntarily " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rousseau explains in the Social Contract how a body of people can not give up their freedom and their rights, even voluntarily.
The act is considered invalid, as the moment one gives up his rights can't be considered sane, and therefore his rights must be given back to him, his fate to be decided by someone else.
Since though there is no one else that can decide for someone else's rights, every one of us is, in one way, "forced" to accept our civil rights and live with them.
Even if such an act was possible, it is valid only for the period of the person's life.
The rights of freedom, equality and life are owned by people from the moment they are born, so a newborn is born free!
Those that have read George Orwell's 1984 know that democracy has, to some extend, already been "put on hold", from the moment that people are forced to live among cameras and experience body searches to travel from one country to another, even between trusted countries like in the EU.
It's only the illusion of democracy and the illusion of rights that we still have when we are born.
The constitution gives you the right to vote, and the government can't take it away from you.
But they can make you not want to vote, and that's what they do.
In the US they have like 50\% of the country's voters not voting.
In Greece here, we had 35\%.
Both percentages are terrifying.
Pericles said that he who doesn't get involved in the matters of the state isn't just indifferent but an enemy, a "villain" as he puts it.
The only way to get real hold of your rights is, as stated above, to become educated.
Only then are you a real threat to the governors of the place and only a government that is afraid of its people is able to act on their behalf.
Giving up your rights voluntarily is just what they want you to do.
But what was gained by the French revolution and the european renaissance can not be taken away from us neither by force nor "voluntarily".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679464</id>
	<title>devils advocate</title>
	<author>Michael Kristopeit</author>
	<datestamp>1269951900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>perhaps we need to suspend james lovelock to save democracy</htmltext>
<tokenext>perhaps we need to suspend james lovelock to save democracy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>perhaps we need to suspend james lovelock to save democracy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679848</id>
	<title>Democracy?</title>
	<author>wisnoskij</author>
	<datestamp>1269953640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why democracy? why not Communism or feudalism?</p><p>Democracy is just one of the many types of government and has nothing to do with environmental issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why democracy ?
why not Communism or feudalism ? Democracy is just one of the many types of government and has nothing to do with environmental issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why democracy?
why not Communism or feudalism?Democracy is just one of the many types of government and has nothing to do with environmental issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681336</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269960600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ban the party system</p></div><p>That, in itself, is anti-liberty.  You can't ban parties, because people have a First Amendment right to combine into groups and to act politically within those groups.</p><p>You can ban <b>special treatment</b> for the "major parties," which I am all in favor of.  And you can even go so far as to ban party affiliations from government-sponsored election materials (other than the candidate's own written text in the election pamphlet).  But that's as far as you can go without attacking the First Amendment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ban the party systemThat , in itself , is anti-liberty .
You ca n't ban parties , because people have a First Amendment right to combine into groups and to act politically within those groups.You can ban special treatment for the " major parties , " which I am all in favor of .
And you can even go so far as to ban party affiliations from government-sponsored election materials ( other than the candidate 's own written text in the election pamphlet ) .
But that 's as far as you can go without attacking the First Amendment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ban the party systemThat, in itself, is anti-liberty.
You can't ban parties, because people have a First Amendment right to combine into groups and to act politically within those groups.You can ban special treatment for the "major parties," which I am all in favor of.
And you can even go so far as to ban party affiliations from government-sponsored election materials (other than the candidate's own written text in the election pamphlet).
But that's as far as you can go without attacking the First Amendment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685034</id>
	<title>Re:Which</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270033860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hey let's suspend freedom to "save the environment".</p></div><p>I agree, lets all be free in an deeply degraded environment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey let 's suspend freedom to " save the environment " .I agree , lets all be free in an deeply degraded environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey let's suspend freedom to "save the environment".I agree, lets all be free in an deeply degraded environment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680728</id>
	<title>Re:LOL</title>
	<author>okooolo</author>
	<datestamp>1269957540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>how about reading the article before condemning the guy?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...........

"What's the alternative to democracy? There isn't one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..............


He simply states that the issue is extremely important and warrants drastic action like in times of war</htmltext>
<tokenext>how about reading the article before condemning the guy ?
.......... . " What 's the alternative to democracy ?
There is n't one .
But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches , democracy must be put on hold for the time being .
I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war .
It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while .
" ............. . He simply states that the issue is extremely important and warrants drastic action like in times of war</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how about reading the article before condemning the guy?
...........

"What's the alternative to democracy?
There isn't one.
But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being.
I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war.
It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.
" ..............


He simply states that the issue is extremely important and warrants drastic action like in times of war</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680248</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269955320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That bug of "nothing major getting addressed" isn't a bug to us, it is a feature - it keeps things fairly stable and slow to change.  This was intentional in the design of our government - the senate was supposed to represent the interests of the states and be slower to respond to popular opinion.  I'm fine with multiple parties, and preference voting, though even that has its downsides - I don't really want the Green party, Libertarian (even though I am somewhat small 'l' liberterian), Constitution or Socialist parties to have more representation, far better to have two basically moderate parties in control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That bug of " nothing major getting addressed " is n't a bug to us , it is a feature - it keeps things fairly stable and slow to change .
This was intentional in the design of our government - the senate was supposed to represent the interests of the states and be slower to respond to popular opinion .
I 'm fine with multiple parties , and preference voting , though even that has its downsides - I do n't really want the Green party , Libertarian ( even though I am somewhat small 'l ' liberterian ) , Constitution or Socialist parties to have more representation , far better to have two basically moderate parties in control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That bug of "nothing major getting addressed" isn't a bug to us, it is a feature - it keeps things fairly stable and slow to change.
This was intentional in the design of our government - the senate was supposed to represent the interests of the states and be slower to respond to popular opinion.
I'm fine with multiple parties, and preference voting, though even that has its downsides - I don't really want the Green party, Libertarian (even though I am somewhat small 'l' liberterian), Constitution or Socialist parties to have more representation, far better to have two basically moderate parties in control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680540</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>The\_Wilschon</author>
	<datestamp>1269956460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not quite sure exactly what you mean by "Govt. collapses".  Surely the country does not become anarchic?  I expect what you mean is that the legislature cannot pass any legislation.  If this is what you mean, then that is perfectly fine by me, and precisely what our system of checks and balances is for.  If the only way to get laws passed is to actually get a large percentage of people (the consituents who elected the representatives who hold certain ideals and sit in office) to agree that the law should be passed, then it means that your democratic republic is working.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not quite sure exactly what you mean by " Govt .
collapses " . Surely the country does not become anarchic ?
I expect what you mean is that the legislature can not pass any legislation .
If this is what you mean , then that is perfectly fine by me , and precisely what our system of checks and balances is for .
If the only way to get laws passed is to actually get a large percentage of people ( the consituents who elected the representatives who hold certain ideals and sit in office ) to agree that the law should be passed , then it means that your democratic republic is working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not quite sure exactly what you mean by "Govt.
collapses".  Surely the country does not become anarchic?
I expect what you mean is that the legislature cannot pass any legislation.
If this is what you mean, then that is perfectly fine by me, and precisely what our system of checks and balances is for.
If the only way to get laws passed is to actually get a large percentage of people (the consituents who elected the representatives who hold certain ideals and sit in office) to agree that the law should be passed, then it means that your democratic republic is working.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31690306</id>
	<title>Let's Suspend James Lovelock As  A Good Start</title>
	<author>manlygeek</author>
	<datestamp>1270061280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>James Lovelock is himself producing quite a few greenhouse gases, so if we suspend him (i.e. put him in suspended animation, involuntarily of course since democracy is a "bad thing") then that seems like a pretty good start.  At least he'd be made to own up to the implications of his own wrong headed opinions and green house gases would drop, albeit a very small amount.</htmltext>
<tokenext>James Lovelock is himself producing quite a few greenhouse gases , so if we suspend him ( i.e .
put him in suspended animation , involuntarily of course since democracy is a " bad thing " ) then that seems like a pretty good start .
At least he 'd be made to own up to the implications of his own wrong headed opinions and green house gases would drop , albeit a very small amount .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>James Lovelock is himself producing quite a few greenhouse gases, so if we suspend him (i.e.
put him in suspended animation, involuntarily of course since democracy is a "bad thing") then that seems like a pretty good start.
At least he'd be made to own up to the implications of his own wrong headed opinions and green house gases would drop, albeit a very small amount.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681610</id>
	<title>Re:Which</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269962100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Goes to show exactly why climate change nut-jobs are DANGEROUS PEOPLE. But the history of the world is full of examples of killing people for lies. Climate change is a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I propose that instead of eliminating democracy we should just eliminate around 80\% of the population. I can provide a list of volunteers for extermination (starting with Mr. Lovelock), and I ask others to do likewise. I, of course, choose not to be on any list.</p></div><p>Goes to show why right wing nut jobs who automatically attack "climate change nut-jobs" are DANGEROUS PEOPLE. Obviously, you didn't RTFA. Obviously you didn't bother to find out that the quote was taken out of context and that Mr. Lovelock was simply stating that he didn't believe that anything would be done about climate change until it reached a war-like crisis, a time when democracies often see rights suspended in order to attend to the crisis. He never suggested putting democracy on hold and he certainly doesn't call for it. Try RTFA instead of just the summary and a few inflammatory posts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Goes to show exactly why climate change nut-jobs are DANGEROUS PEOPLE .
But the history of the world is full of examples of killing people for lies .
Climate change is a ... I propose that instead of eliminating democracy we should just eliminate around 80 \ % of the population .
I can provide a list of volunteers for extermination ( starting with Mr. Lovelock ) , and I ask others to do likewise .
I , of course , choose not to be on any list.Goes to show why right wing nut jobs who automatically attack " climate change nut-jobs " are DANGEROUS PEOPLE .
Obviously , you did n't RTFA .
Obviously you did n't bother to find out that the quote was taken out of context and that Mr. Lovelock was simply stating that he did n't believe that anything would be done about climate change until it reached a war-like crisis , a time when democracies often see rights suspended in order to attend to the crisis .
He never suggested putting democracy on hold and he certainly does n't call for it .
Try RTFA instead of just the summary and a few inflammatory posts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goes to show exactly why climate change nut-jobs are DANGEROUS PEOPLE.
But the history of the world is full of examples of killing people for lies.
Climate change is a ... I propose that instead of eliminating democracy we should just eliminate around 80\% of the population.
I can provide a list of volunteers for extermination (starting with Mr. Lovelock), and I ask others to do likewise.
I, of course, choose not to be on any list.Goes to show why right wing nut jobs who automatically attack "climate change nut-jobs" are DANGEROUS PEOPLE.
Obviously, you didn't RTFA.
Obviously you didn't bother to find out that the quote was taken out of context and that Mr. Lovelock was simply stating that he didn't believe that anything would be done about climate change until it reached a war-like crisis, a time when democracies often see rights suspended in order to attend to the crisis.
He never suggested putting democracy on hold and he certainly doesn't call for it.
Try RTFA instead of just the summary and a few inflammatory posts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679474</id>
	<title>I knew it</title>
	<author>ickleberry</author>
	<datestamp>1269951960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This whole 'carbon footprint' and 'green' malarky is just a way to make us feel bad about pretty much anything we do even though we might be able to afford it and so the eventual aim seems to be to usher in an authoritarian regime where everybody is given the absolute minimum necessary to survive. <br> <br>

These doomsday environmentalists are not helping the situation one bit - I am actually interested in renewable energy, electric cars and so on but each time one of these guys opens their mouth I feel like jumping into the car and pouring 70 litres of petrol into the tank while I'm still allowed, you know.
<br> <br>
Before we are all thrown into a supermassive apartment block and given only rice crackers and water to live off. If we are lucky they might allow us a single CFL in our cell and the very obedient are allowed a recycled netbook with Google Chrome OS or similar Web-only OS. <br> <br>

Meanwhile the politicians and scientists behind this regime will obviously be livin' the good live on some island with all the fuel and personal freedom they could possibly ever think of asking for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This whole 'carbon footprint ' and 'green ' malarky is just a way to make us feel bad about pretty much anything we do even though we might be able to afford it and so the eventual aim seems to be to usher in an authoritarian regime where everybody is given the absolute minimum necessary to survive .
These doomsday environmentalists are not helping the situation one bit - I am actually interested in renewable energy , electric cars and so on but each time one of these guys opens their mouth I feel like jumping into the car and pouring 70 litres of petrol into the tank while I 'm still allowed , you know .
Before we are all thrown into a supermassive apartment block and given only rice crackers and water to live off .
If we are lucky they might allow us a single CFL in our cell and the very obedient are allowed a recycled netbook with Google Chrome OS or similar Web-only OS .
Meanwhile the politicians and scientists behind this regime will obviously be livin ' the good live on some island with all the fuel and personal freedom they could possibly ever think of asking for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This whole 'carbon footprint' and 'green' malarky is just a way to make us feel bad about pretty much anything we do even though we might be able to afford it and so the eventual aim seems to be to usher in an authoritarian regime where everybody is given the absolute minimum necessary to survive.
These doomsday environmentalists are not helping the situation one bit - I am actually interested in renewable energy, electric cars and so on but each time one of these guys opens their mouth I feel like jumping into the car and pouring 70 litres of petrol into the tank while I'm still allowed, you know.
Before we are all thrown into a supermassive apartment block and given only rice crackers and water to live off.
If we are lucky they might allow us a single CFL in our cell and the very obedient are allowed a recycled netbook with Google Chrome OS or similar Web-only OS.
Meanwhile the politicians and scientists behind this regime will obviously be livin' the good live on some island with all the fuel and personal freedom they could possibly ever think of asking for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31687574</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>Rocketship Underpant</author>
	<datestamp>1270050060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I came up with an idea for choosing random ballots to fill legislature seats and other political positions, with voters allowed to write absolutely anyone on the ballot, including themselves. Over time, the results would be a much better statistical match to people's actual preferences and reflect the diversity of opinions better than the current majoritarian approach. Popular parties would still be more likely to win seats, but the notion of wasting one's vote would no longer interfere with decision-making, since every single seat would in theory be decided by a (someone's) single vote.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I came up with an idea for choosing random ballots to fill legislature seats and other political positions , with voters allowed to write absolutely anyone on the ballot , including themselves .
Over time , the results would be a much better statistical match to people 's actual preferences and reflect the diversity of opinions better than the current majoritarian approach .
Popular parties would still be more likely to win seats , but the notion of wasting one 's vote would no longer interfere with decision-making , since every single seat would in theory be decided by a ( someone 's ) single vote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I came up with an idea for choosing random ballots to fill legislature seats and other political positions, with voters allowed to write absolutely anyone on the ballot, including themselves.
Over time, the results would be a much better statistical match to people's actual preferences and reflect the diversity of opinions better than the current majoritarian approach.
Popular parties would still be more likely to win seats, but the notion of wasting one's vote would no longer interfere with decision-making, since every single seat would in theory be decided by a (someone's) single vote.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679924</id>
	<title>Re:He's got historical precedent on his side</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1269954000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Approached from another angle, he might have more real-life precedents than it appears. "Democracy" of local communities is quite readily limited throghout the world when it can have negative impacts (also...localised enviromental ones) on the community and its neighbours.</p><p>Unfortunatelly, people stop wanting to care and/or are unable to when faced with such issues on much bigger scale (also involving many large communities which are no longer neighbours)</p><p>PS. If there's a slight chance that Plato was thinking about meritocracy while saying that, at least Finland might somehow fall under not-bad-outcome...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Approached from another angle , he might have more real-life precedents than it appears .
" Democracy " of local communities is quite readily limited throghout the world when it can have negative impacts ( also...localised enviromental ones ) on the community and its neighbours.Unfortunatelly , people stop wanting to care and/or are unable to when faced with such issues on much bigger scale ( also involving many large communities which are no longer neighbours ) PS .
If there 's a slight chance that Plato was thinking about meritocracy while saying that , at least Finland might somehow fall under not-bad-outcome.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Approached from another angle, he might have more real-life precedents than it appears.
"Democracy" of local communities is quite readily limited throghout the world when it can have negative impacts (also...localised enviromental ones) on the community and its neighbours.Unfortunatelly, people stop wanting to care and/or are unable to when faced with such issues on much bigger scale (also involving many large communities which are no longer neighbours)PS.
If there's a slight chance that Plato was thinking about meritocracy while saying that, at least Finland might somehow fall under not-bad-outcome...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679498</id>
	<title>Re:He's got historical precedent on his side</title>
	<author>Neon Aardvark</author>
	<datestamp>1269952020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good way to "thrash out" a scientific theory by using a smear word to label those on the other side, which is also applied to certain neo-nazis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good way to " thrash out " a scientific theory by using a smear word to label those on the other side , which is also applied to certain neo-nazis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good way to "thrash out" a scientific theory by using a smear word to label those on the other side, which is also applied to certain neo-nazis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679752</id>
	<title>Theory vs reality</title>
	<author>fnj</author>
	<datestamp>1269953160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In THEORY we have a two party democratic republic.  In REALITY we have a corruptocracy composed of a consipiracy between politicians and mega-corporations.  The two parties are a charade.  They are tweedledum and tweedledee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In THEORY we have a two party democratic republic .
In REALITY we have a corruptocracy composed of a consipiracy between politicians and mega-corporations .
The two parties are a charade .
They are tweedledum and tweedledee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In THEORY we have a two party democratic republic.
In REALITY we have a corruptocracy composed of a consipiracy between politicians and mega-corporations.
The two parties are a charade.
They are tweedledum and tweedledee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31686466</id>
	<title>Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270045320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this Gaia thingy reminds me a MontyPython sketch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this Gaia thingy reminds me a MontyPython sketch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this Gaia thingy reminds me a MontyPython sketch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685984</id>
	<title>Democracy?</title>
	<author>atisss</author>
	<datestamp>1270042500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What democracy? Has there ever been Democracy since ancient Rome? I don't believe so. If it would be democracy, it probably would be possible to change something. Hell, I would vote for some exact measures.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What democracy ?
Has there ever been Democracy since ancient Rome ?
I do n't believe so .
If it would be democracy , it probably would be possible to change something .
Hell , I would vote for some exact measures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What democracy?
Has there ever been Democracy since ancient Rome?
I don't believe so.
If it would be democracy, it probably would be possible to change something.
Hell, I would vote for some exact measures.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31686918</id>
	<title>Democracy is ending</title>
	<author>KiwiCanuck</author>
	<datestamp>1270047360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As The banks are convincing people to subjugate themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As The banks are convincing people to subjugate themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As The banks are convincing people to subjugate themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679968</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>zach\_the\_lizard</author>
	<datestamp>1269954240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of the Western world is some form of a republic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the Western world is some form of a republic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the Western world is some form of a republic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680572</id>
	<title>Re:Start with James Lovelock's democratic rights</title>
	<author>Aphoxema</author>
	<datestamp>1269956700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess your decree would be to suggest people live by their own decrees!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess your decree would be to suggest people live by their own decrees !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess your decree would be to suggest people live by their own decrees!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679500</id>
	<title>At least the solar powered trains will run on time</title>
	<author>Cyberblah</author>
	<datestamp>1269952020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Suspending democracy is a great way to be told, forever, that the climate will be fixed at the end of the current five year plan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suspending democracy is a great way to be told , forever , that the climate will be fixed at the end of the current five year plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suspending democracy is a great way to be told, forever, that the climate will be fixed at the end of the current five year plan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680448</id>
	<title>Lovelock is too stupid to understand democracy</title>
	<author>FoolishOwl</author>
	<datestamp>1269956100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my experience, there's enormous grassroots support for action to counteract climate change and move towards ecologically sustainable practices. Most people I know are eagerly looking for ways to help, and often make sacrifices for the sake of the environment that may be greater sacrifices than are really necessary. It's not democracy, but the lack of it, that inhibits progress on these issues.</p><p>It's the wealthy minority, who by and large owe their position to ruthless exploitation of people and natural resources, who are most recalcitrant about ecological concerns. They're where they are because they're willing to sacrifice the needs of others for their own gain.</p><p>Suspending democracy -- insofar as we have it -- would be on the short list for the things most certain to lead to complete ecological devastation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience , there 's enormous grassroots support for action to counteract climate change and move towards ecologically sustainable practices .
Most people I know are eagerly looking for ways to help , and often make sacrifices for the sake of the environment that may be greater sacrifices than are really necessary .
It 's not democracy , but the lack of it , that inhibits progress on these issues.It 's the wealthy minority , who by and large owe their position to ruthless exploitation of people and natural resources , who are most recalcitrant about ecological concerns .
They 're where they are because they 're willing to sacrifice the needs of others for their own gain.Suspending democracy -- insofar as we have it -- would be on the short list for the things most certain to lead to complete ecological devastation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience, there's enormous grassroots support for action to counteract climate change and move towards ecologically sustainable practices.
Most people I know are eagerly looking for ways to help, and often make sacrifices for the sake of the environment that may be greater sacrifices than are really necessary.
It's not democracy, but the lack of it, that inhibits progress on these issues.It's the wealthy minority, who by and large owe their position to ruthless exploitation of people and natural resources, who are most recalcitrant about ecological concerns.
They're where they are because they're willing to sacrifice the needs of others for their own gain.Suspending democracy -- insofar as we have it -- would be on the short list for the things most certain to lead to complete ecological devastation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685764</id>
	<title>Re:Democracy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1270040820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.  I really don't think you want that.  The reason the founding fathers engineered the United States as a democratic republic was to protect the rights of the People against intrusions not only by the federal government, but also by the People themselves.  The problem with the United States' political situation is not a lack of democracy, but the excess of big money influence and the abject failure of the Fourth Estate to hold tyranny in check (also due to big money influence).  Of course, the People are also not without blame, for letting slip the reins of their government, and falling to decadence and disinterest in the affairs of their own nation.  As Benjamin Franklin once said, "A republic if you can keep it."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner .
I really do n't think you want that .
The reason the founding fathers engineered the United States as a democratic republic was to protect the rights of the People against intrusions not only by the federal government , but also by the People themselves .
The problem with the United States ' political situation is not a lack of democracy , but the excess of big money influence and the abject failure of the Fourth Estate to hold tyranny in check ( also due to big money influence ) .
Of course , the People are also not without blame , for letting slip the reins of their government , and falling to decadence and disinterest in the affairs of their own nation .
As Benjamin Franklin once said , " A republic if you can keep it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
I really don't think you want that.
The reason the founding fathers engineered the United States as a democratic republic was to protect the rights of the People against intrusions not only by the federal government, but also by the People themselves.
The problem with the United States' political situation is not a lack of democracy, but the excess of big money influence and the abject failure of the Fourth Estate to hold tyranny in check (also due to big money influence).
Of course, the People are also not without blame, for letting slip the reins of their government, and falling to decadence and disinterest in the affairs of their own nation.
As Benjamin Franklin once said, "A republic if you can keep it.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681340</id>
	<title>Is cordite a green house gas?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269960600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can have my republic when you pry it from my cold dead hands thank you very much. So is cordite a green house gas? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordite Could do the two birds, one stone thing...ruin the planet and save the republic!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can have my republic when you pry it from my cold dead hands thank you very much .
So is cordite a green house gas ?
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordite Could do the two birds , one stone thing...ruin the planet and save the republic !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can have my republic when you pry it from my cold dead hands thank you very much.
So is cordite a green house gas?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordite Could do the two birds, one stone thing...ruin the planet and save the republic!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31689024</id>
	<title>Another way to remove freedom</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1270055700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see governments using this as justification to remove all our freedoms.<br>What happens to individual rights when all countries are dictatorships and there's no 'free world' with an army left to fight for democracy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see governments using this as justification to remove all our freedoms.What happens to individual rights when all countries are dictatorships and there 's no 'free world ' with an army left to fight for democracy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see governments using this as justification to remove all our freedoms.What happens to individual rights when all countries are dictatorships and there's no 'free world' with an army left to fight for democracy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31688970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31687592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680668
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31684840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31683554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31684312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31688660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31689290
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31686568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31684886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31683444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31688932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31683620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31684116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31689016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31693188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31688094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31683310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31684162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31684642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31684768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31695884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31683326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31687574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_238233_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31683554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31684116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31684886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31686568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31683444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31689016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31688094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31688932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31688660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679986
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31684156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31684840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31693188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679860
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31684642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31683620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31684162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31689290
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31684768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31687574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31687592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680248
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31688970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31683310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31683326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680728
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31685258
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31684312
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679578
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31690020
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31690306
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31695884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31680616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_238233.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31679758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31682082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_238233.31681018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
