<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_05_29_2256242</id>
	<title>Time Warner Confirms Split With AOL</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1243599300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ausekilis writes <i>"Many outlets are reporting that <a href="http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/05/with-no-buyers-in-sight-time-warner-finally-to-spin-off-aol.ars">Time Warner has confirmed plans to spin off AOL</a>. All that's left to deal with are <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Time-Warner-to-spin-off-AOL-apf-15368617.html">a few financial hurdles</a>, such as buying out <a href="//slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/16/204231&amp;tid=217">Google's 5\% stake in AOL</a>. The interesting part of the story is that both AOL's CEO and Time Warner's CEO said effectively the same thing, that AOL will be <a href="http://kara.allthingsd.com/20090528/aol-spin-off-approved-last-night-by-time-warner-board-heres-the-inside-details-not-in-the-press-release/?mod=ATD\_rss">better off as an independent unit</a>, as opposed to 'a cog in the Time Warner wheel.' Interesting to note that when they originally merged, the idea was for AOL to be a one-stop shop for all your internet goods. Makes you wonder what would have happened if Time Warner had invested in AOL as an exclusive media outlet for movies, TV, music, etc. Perhaps AOL would have regained some speed and become the prominent household name it once was, instead of being that company who sent us all the free coasters."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ausekilis writes " Many outlets are reporting that Time Warner has confirmed plans to spin off AOL .
All that 's left to deal with are a few financial hurdles , such as buying out Google 's 5 \ % stake in AOL .
The interesting part of the story is that both AOL 's CEO and Time Warner 's CEO said effectively the same thing , that AOL will be better off as an independent unit , as opposed to 'a cog in the Time Warner wheel .
' Interesting to note that when they originally merged , the idea was for AOL to be a one-stop shop for all your internet goods .
Makes you wonder what would have happened if Time Warner had invested in AOL as an exclusive media outlet for movies , TV , music , etc .
Perhaps AOL would have regained some speed and become the prominent household name it once was , instead of being that company who sent us all the free coasters .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ausekilis writes "Many outlets are reporting that Time Warner has confirmed plans to spin off AOL.
All that's left to deal with are a few financial hurdles, such as buying out Google's 5\% stake in AOL.
The interesting part of the story is that both AOL's CEO and Time Warner's CEO said effectively the same thing, that AOL will be better off as an independent unit, as opposed to 'a cog in the Time Warner wheel.
' Interesting to note that when they originally merged, the idea was for AOL to be a one-stop shop for all your internet goods.
Makes you wonder what would have happened if Time Warner had invested in AOL as an exclusive media outlet for movies, TV, music, etc.
Perhaps AOL would have regained some speed and become the prominent household name it once was, instead of being that company who sent us all the free coasters.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146191</id>
	<title>Re:Ted Turner: The merger was "better than sex".</title>
	<author>Un pobre guey</author>
	<datestamp>1243607100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not getting much press. At the time of the merger, it was abundantly clear to everyone who was paying attention that it was not just a colossally dumb idea, but a massive scam carried out by one of the craftiest con artists of our time. AOL was already a dog by then, falling rapidly out of favor even among its natural user base of technically uninformed people. The huge payoffs for those immediately involved in the deal were by far the most important driving force. It must have been obvious to them at the time that it was a shit deal, but the short term payoff was so powerfully compelling that they went ahead anyway. How it hasn't been found to be fraudulent is beyond me, but then again the people who make these deals know what side the bread is buttered on. It is that kind of complicity that keeps the financial industry together. We have seen that on more than one occasion in the recent past.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not getting much press .
At the time of the merger , it was abundantly clear to everyone who was paying attention that it was not just a colossally dumb idea , but a massive scam carried out by one of the craftiest con artists of our time .
AOL was already a dog by then , falling rapidly out of favor even among its natural user base of technically uninformed people .
The huge payoffs for those immediately involved in the deal were by far the most important driving force .
It must have been obvious to them at the time that it was a shit deal , but the short term payoff was so powerfully compelling that they went ahead anyway .
How it has n't been found to be fraudulent is beyond me , but then again the people who make these deals know what side the bread is buttered on .
It is that kind of complicity that keeps the financial industry together .
We have seen that on more than one occasion in the recent past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not getting much press.
At the time of the merger, it was abundantly clear to everyone who was paying attention that it was not just a colossally dumb idea, but a massive scam carried out by one of the craftiest con artists of our time.
AOL was already a dog by then, falling rapidly out of favor even among its natural user base of technically uninformed people.
The huge payoffs for those immediately involved in the deal were by far the most important driving force.
It must have been obvious to them at the time that it was a shit deal, but the short term payoff was so powerfully compelling that they went ahead anyway.
How it hasn't been found to be fraudulent is beyond me, but then again the people who make these deals know what side the bread is buttered on.
It is that kind of complicity that keeps the financial industry together.
We have seen that on more than one occasion in the recent past.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146033</id>
	<title>Re:About...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243605240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They also own several online advertising properties.  It was through online advertising via third party networks as well as their owned and operated site that was going to save the day.  Unfortunately, AOL doesn't seem to know how to run online advertising any better than its dial-up service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They also own several online advertising properties .
It was through online advertising via third party networks as well as their owned and operated site that was going to save the day .
Unfortunately , AOL does n't seem to know how to run online advertising any better than its dial-up service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They also own several online advertising properties.
It was through online advertising via third party networks as well as their owned and operated site that was going to save the day.
Unfortunately, AOL doesn't seem to know how to run online advertising any better than its dial-up service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146091</id>
	<title>Re:Why does Google have a stake in AOL?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243605840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the better to have AOL users link to Google as a search engine by installing the Google Toolbar as part of the AOL software. The default search engine is still AOL, but the Google toolbar gives Google some traffic to keep up their revenues.</p><p>Google usually takes a minority share in computer companies that agree to install their toolbar with their own software or web browsers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the better to have AOL users link to Google as a search engine by installing the Google Toolbar as part of the AOL software .
The default search engine is still AOL , but the Google toolbar gives Google some traffic to keep up their revenues.Google usually takes a minority share in computer companies that agree to install their toolbar with their own software or web browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the better to have AOL users link to Google as a search engine by installing the Google Toolbar as part of the AOL software.
The default search engine is still AOL, but the Google toolbar gives Google some traffic to keep up their revenues.Google usually takes a minority share in computer companies that agree to install their toolbar with their own software or web browsers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145859</id>
	<title>The move to social networking.</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1243603740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with those at America Online that think that as of now, it's best suited for a vertical move to social networking. It's internet connectivity model has been stagnant for a <b>long</b> time, but it's social networking features are strong and have room to improve. (AIM is the quintessential example of this.)
<br> <br>
However, I feel bad for those that still work at the company, and users still chained to their internet services for some reason or other.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with those at America Online that think that as of now , it 's best suited for a vertical move to social networking .
It 's internet connectivity model has been stagnant for a long time , but it 's social networking features are strong and have room to improve .
( AIM is the quintessential example of this .
) However , I feel bad for those that still work at the company , and users still chained to their internet services for some reason or other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with those at America Online that think that as of now, it's best suited for a vertical move to social networking.
It's internet connectivity model has been stagnant for a long time, but it's social networking features are strong and have room to improve.
(AIM is the quintessential example of this.
)
 
However, I feel bad for those that still work at the company, and users still chained to their internet services for some reason or other.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145981</id>
	<title>Coasters?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243604760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my day they sent out floppy disks.  You know, the kind that could be erased and something useful put on them.  It was great!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my day they sent out floppy disks .
You know , the kind that could be erased and something useful put on them .
It was great !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my day they sent out floppy disks.
You know, the kind that could be erased and something useful put on them.
It was great!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145911</id>
	<title>Chat Giant</title>
	<author>Haxx</author>
	<datestamp>1243604100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Plenty can be said about the cons of AOL such as the software being classified as a virus. There was a time period from 1996-2003 when AOL chat rooms had hundreds of thousands of participants 24 hours a day. For us introverts it was a social mecca.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    Plenty can be said about the cons of AOL such as the software being classified as a virus .
There was a time period from 1996-2003 when AOL chat rooms had hundreds of thousands of participants 24 hours a day .
For us introverts it was a social mecca .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    Plenty can be said about the cons of AOL such as the software being classified as a virus.
There was a time period from 1996-2003 when AOL chat rooms had hundreds of thousands of participants 24 hours a day.
For us introverts it was a social mecca.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28147453</id>
	<title>Re:AOL was WHAT?</title>
	<author>afabbro</author>
	<datestamp>1243623720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>"Perhaps AOL would have regained some speed and become the prominent household name it once was, instead of being that company who sent us all the free coasters."</i> </p><p>They were ever anything else?</p><p>I always saw AOL as the online service for people who didn't want to type. Was there ever a time AOL had, like, actual street cred?</p></div><p>Street cred?  If you mean "cool", then no.  However, there was a time - in fact, quite a long time - before the Internet was open to the public.  I used CompuServe and GEnie from the mid-80s through the early 90s.  Most people I knew used Prodigy, AOL, etc.  All of these were subscription services where you signed up for dial-up access.</p><p>The idea of an "ISP" - one that simply provided you the same connectivity as anyone else - didn't come along until the mid-90s or perhaps a little later (at least in terms of widespread availability).  Prior to that, it was only walled gardens...you signed up for CompuServe, you could only talk to people on CompuServe, you used CompuServe modem banks to dial into, you had access only to CompuServe content, etc.  Ditto for AOL, Prodigy, etc.  They eventually adapted so you could email from CompuServe to AOL, but this was much later.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Perhaps AOL would have regained some speed and become the prominent household name it once was , instead of being that company who sent us all the free coasters .
" They were ever anything else ? I always saw AOL as the online service for people who did n't want to type .
Was there ever a time AOL had , like , actual street cred ? Street cred ?
If you mean " cool " , then no .
However , there was a time - in fact , quite a long time - before the Internet was open to the public .
I used CompuServe and GEnie from the mid-80s through the early 90s .
Most people I knew used Prodigy , AOL , etc .
All of these were subscription services where you signed up for dial-up access.The idea of an " ISP " - one that simply provided you the same connectivity as anyone else - did n't come along until the mid-90s or perhaps a little later ( at least in terms of widespread availability ) .
Prior to that , it was only walled gardens...you signed up for CompuServe , you could only talk to people on CompuServe , you used CompuServe modem banks to dial into , you had access only to CompuServe content , etc .
Ditto for AOL , Prodigy , etc .
They eventually adapted so you could email from CompuServe to AOL , but this was much later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Perhaps AOL would have regained some speed and become the prominent household name it once was, instead of being that company who sent us all the free coasters.
" They were ever anything else?I always saw AOL as the online service for people who didn't want to type.
Was there ever a time AOL had, like, actual street cred?Street cred?
If you mean "cool", then no.
However, there was a time - in fact, quite a long time - before the Internet was open to the public.
I used CompuServe and GEnie from the mid-80s through the early 90s.
Most people I knew used Prodigy, AOL, etc.
All of these were subscription services where you signed up for dial-up access.The idea of an "ISP" - one that simply provided you the same connectivity as anyone else - didn't come along until the mid-90s or perhaps a little later (at least in terms of widespread availability).
Prior to that, it was only walled gardens...you signed up for CompuServe, you could only talk to people on CompuServe, you used CompuServe modem banks to dial into, you had access only to CompuServe content, etc.
Ditto for AOL, Prodigy, etc.
They eventually adapted so you could email from CompuServe to AOL, but this was much later.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28149941</id>
	<title>Re:About...</title>
	<author>Tokerat</author>
	<datestamp>1243703400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget, they're still running all the netscape.net email accounts!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget , they 're still running all the netscape.net email accounts !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget, they're still running all the netscape.net email accounts!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28147433</id>
	<title>Re:Ted Turner: The merger was "better than sex".</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243623420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The 88 BILLION dollars lost when Time Warner bought AOL has been
considered to be the worst business decision of all time.</p></div><p>Oh, the Obama administration is giving them a good run for their money...first banks, now automakers.  Maybe airlines for the trifecta.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 88 BILLION dollars lost when Time Warner bought AOL has been considered to be the worst business decision of all time.Oh , the Obama administration is giving them a good run for their money...first banks , now automakers .
Maybe airlines for the trifecta .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 88 BILLION dollars lost when Time Warner bought AOL has been
considered to be the worst business decision of all time.Oh, the Obama administration is giving them a good run for their money...first banks, now automakers.
Maybe airlines for the trifecta.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28156319</id>
	<title>AOL can rot in hell.</title>
	<author>Desirsar</author>
	<datestamp>1243800540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AOL's merger with Time Warner and wanting to increase their bottom line by selling or closing all of Time Warner's businesses that did not have large profit margins is the reason WCW was killed off and sold in 2001.  (I'm sure there aren't many wrestling fans among Slashdotters, but liken it to EA swallowing up and closing or otherwise ruining game studios that you liked.)  I feel bad for whichever company ends up being unfortunate enough to buy AOL, the business is likely not salvageable, and there is certainly no value left in the name.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AOL 's merger with Time Warner and wanting to increase their bottom line by selling or closing all of Time Warner 's businesses that did not have large profit margins is the reason WCW was killed off and sold in 2001 .
( I 'm sure there are n't many wrestling fans among Slashdotters , but liken it to EA swallowing up and closing or otherwise ruining game studios that you liked .
) I feel bad for whichever company ends up being unfortunate enough to buy AOL , the business is likely not salvageable , and there is certainly no value left in the name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AOL's merger with Time Warner and wanting to increase their bottom line by selling or closing all of Time Warner's businesses that did not have large profit margins is the reason WCW was killed off and sold in 2001.
(I'm sure there aren't many wrestling fans among Slashdotters, but liken it to EA swallowing up and closing or otherwise ruining game studios that you liked.
)  I feel bad for whichever company ends up being unfortunate enough to buy AOL, the business is likely not salvageable, and there is certainly no value left in the name.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28147699</id>
	<title>Re:The move to social networking.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243714380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's internet connectivity model</i></p><p>"Its".</p><p><i>but it's social networking features</i></p><p>"its".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's internet connectivity model " Its " .but it 's social networking features " its " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's internet connectivity model"Its".but it's social networking features"its".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28147461</id>
	<title>AOL is being spun off?  By their subsidiary?</title>
	<author>pthisis</author>
	<datestamp>1243623840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't that \_backwards\_?  I mean, I know AOL is a laughingstock now, but they paid $164 billion to purchase Time-Warner in 2001.  AOL bought Time-Warner, not the other way around.  Doesn't the owner spin off the subsidiary?</p><p>It was a brilliant move by them at the time to turn Internet bubble money into real money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that \ _backwards \ _ ?
I mean , I know AOL is a laughingstock now , but they paid $ 164 billion to purchase Time-Warner in 2001 .
AOL bought Time-Warner , not the other way around .
Does n't the owner spin off the subsidiary ? It was a brilliant move by them at the time to turn Internet bubble money into real money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that \_backwards\_?
I mean, I know AOL is a laughingstock now, but they paid $164 billion to purchase Time-Warner in 2001.
AOL bought Time-Warner, not the other way around.
Doesn't the owner spin off the subsidiary?It was a brilliant move by them at the time to turn Internet bubble money into real money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146125</id>
	<title>Re: Deja Vu</title>
	<author>klawre1221</author>
	<datestamp>1243606140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought it was stupid when Time Warner did it. Now it looks like they are going to take a real beating.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought it was stupid when Time Warner did it .
Now it looks like they are going to take a real beating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought it was stupid when Time Warner did it.
Now it looks like they are going to take a real beating.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28152631</id>
	<title>Re:Coasters?</title>
	<author>goldaryn</author>
	<datestamp>1243679460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xfqkdh5Js4" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Don't *copy* that *floppy*!</a> [youtube.com] <br>
<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...seriously.. don't... it's got AOL on it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't * copy * that * floppy * !
[ youtube.com ] ...seriously.. do n't... it 's got AOL on it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't *copy* that *floppy*!
[youtube.com] 
 ...seriously.. don't... it's got AOL on it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28148187</id>
	<title>Re:Web verticalization</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1243680360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do we really need those all-inclusive portals anymore ? Time Warner might be thinking along those lines..</p></div><p>Of course we need them, otherwise their users might come here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we really need those all-inclusive portals anymore ?
Time Warner might be thinking along those lines..Of course we need them , otherwise their users might come here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we really need those all-inclusive portals anymore ?
Time Warner might be thinking along those lines..Of course we need them, otherwise their users might come here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145881</id>
	<title>Why does Google have a stake in AOL?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243603920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does Google have a 5\% stake in AOL?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does Google have a 5 \ % stake in AOL ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does Google have a 5\% stake in AOL?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28151915</id>
	<title>Re:AOL was WHAT?</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1243675080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, I mean respect, kid. Yes, I remember Compuserve. I had a low CI$ id, even. You had to know how to type to use Compuserve. AOL was the online service for people who didn't know how to type. It had no respect even back then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I mean respect , kid .
Yes , I remember Compuserve .
I had a low CI $ id , even .
You had to know how to type to use Compuserve .
AOL was the online service for people who did n't know how to type .
It had no respect even back then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I mean respect, kid.
Yes, I remember Compuserve.
I had a low CI$ id, even.
You had to know how to type to use Compuserve.
AOL was the online service for people who didn't know how to type.
It had no respect even back then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28147453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145889</id>
	<title>About...</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1243603980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>About the only thing that AOL really has that are of any worth are AIM and a few blogs such as Engdaget. Other then that they have ruined their reputation too much to be profitable in any other thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>About the only thing that AOL really has that are of any worth are AIM and a few blogs such as Engdaget .
Other then that they have ruined their reputation too much to be profitable in any other thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About the only thing that AOL really has that are of any worth are AIM and a few blogs such as Engdaget.
Other then that they have ruined their reputation too much to be profitable in any other thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28186361</id>
	<title>Summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243974300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time-Warner: "Let's buy the most-hated brand in the online community, whose users are renowned and mocked for their ignorance, and make a profit!"<br>Internet: "AOLers??? You want to make MORE AOLers? DIE!"</p><p>AOL needs to sleep for about 20 years until absolutely no one can remember how bad it was. They put the most ugly and shameful parts of the American commercial excess culture online, then DUMBED IT DOWN so Americans could pretend they were on the Internet with the grownups. Ye gods and demons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time-Warner : " Let 's buy the most-hated brand in the online community , whose users are renowned and mocked for their ignorance , and make a profit !
" Internet : " AOLers ? ? ?
You want to make MORE AOLers ?
DIE ! " AOL needs to sleep for about 20 years until absolutely no one can remember how bad it was .
They put the most ugly and shameful parts of the American commercial excess culture online , then DUMBED IT DOWN so Americans could pretend they were on the Internet with the grownups .
Ye gods and demons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time-Warner: "Let's buy the most-hated brand in the online community, whose users are renowned and mocked for their ignorance, and make a profit!
"Internet: "AOLers???
You want to make MORE AOLers?
DIE!"AOL needs to sleep for about 20 years until absolutely no one can remember how bad it was.
They put the most ugly and shameful parts of the American commercial excess culture online, then DUMBED IT DOWN so Americans could pretend they were on the Internet with the grownups.
Ye gods and demons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146243</id>
	<title>Re:Chat Giant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243607580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Today we have 4chan. Thank God for that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Today we have 4chan .
Thank God for that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Today we have 4chan.
Thank God for that!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146515</id>
	<title>The other way around: AOL purchased Time-Warner</title>
	<author>gaiageek</author>
	<datestamp>1243610760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was AOL who bought Time-Warner: <a href="http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-235400.html" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-235400.html</a> [cnet.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was AOL who bought Time-Warner : http : //news.cnet.com/2100-1023-235400.html [ cnet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was AOL who bought Time-Warner: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-235400.html [cnet.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146459</id>
	<title>Re:Coasters?</title>
	<author>ElephanTS</author>
	<datestamp>1243610100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup, pass the cellotape!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , pass the cellotape !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, pass the cellotape!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146495</id>
	<title>Re:The move to social networking.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243610520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, I feel bad for those that still work at the company, and users still chained to their internet services for some reason or other.</p></div><p>Don't feel bad at all, at least for the employees.  Most of the employees are rather positive about the change and the new CEO, if today's meeting in Dulles is any indicator.  There is now actually some hope that we will be allowed to be a company that understands how to sell internet services and content again.  We actually have a rather large space staked out on the Internet which can be enlarged significantly, as well as better managed.</p><p>AOL hasn't been about access for years now.  We still have a rather large number of people who use AOL as an ISP, despite firing the whole marketing staff a few years ago.  So much so that there is actually something of a drive to pay attention to that segment again, instead of letting it die off.</p><p>Still, while the client hasn't died out, most of the work is happening on the content end.  I recall some one posting here that says that we have "Engadget" and a few other blogs.  Actually "a few" blogs at last count was more like a couple dozen blogs in the top 100.</p><p>No one here is pretending that we're in the same place as Google, but at the same time, we're not trying to be in the same space as Google.  We'll compete in some places and cooperate or defer to Google in others.  For instance, Google is in the business of aggregating News, we are now in the business of producing News, having started to hire journalists from the fading print journalism sector to actually author content.  Should the new model be fully realized, we will be in a very good position to actually lead coverage in certain areas and generate much better experiences for users, which will in turn be appreciated by advertisers.</p><p>Of course, after ten years or so of problems and layoffs, no one at AOL believes a turnaround is going to be easy, or that we will be the powerhouse that once could be confused with "the Intarwebs".   Bear in mind though, that we are still here nine years later, after one of the worse mergers in history, the dot-com bust, buy out negotiations AND the deepest recession in recent times.  It certainly hasn't been easy, but the company has staked out a portion of the landscape and has managed to stay standing upright throughout.  Considering that most of us are actually in favor of the spin-off means that this is unlikely to change.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , I feel bad for those that still work at the company , and users still chained to their internet services for some reason or other.Do n't feel bad at all , at least for the employees .
Most of the employees are rather positive about the change and the new CEO , if today 's meeting in Dulles is any indicator .
There is now actually some hope that we will be allowed to be a company that understands how to sell internet services and content again .
We actually have a rather large space staked out on the Internet which can be enlarged significantly , as well as better managed.AOL has n't been about access for years now .
We still have a rather large number of people who use AOL as an ISP , despite firing the whole marketing staff a few years ago .
So much so that there is actually something of a drive to pay attention to that segment again , instead of letting it die off.Still , while the client has n't died out , most of the work is happening on the content end .
I recall some one posting here that says that we have " Engadget " and a few other blogs .
Actually " a few " blogs at last count was more like a couple dozen blogs in the top 100.No one here is pretending that we 're in the same place as Google , but at the same time , we 're not trying to be in the same space as Google .
We 'll compete in some places and cooperate or defer to Google in others .
For instance , Google is in the business of aggregating News , we are now in the business of producing News , having started to hire journalists from the fading print journalism sector to actually author content .
Should the new model be fully realized , we will be in a very good position to actually lead coverage in certain areas and generate much better experiences for users , which will in turn be appreciated by advertisers.Of course , after ten years or so of problems and layoffs , no one at AOL believes a turnaround is going to be easy , or that we will be the powerhouse that once could be confused with " the Intarwebs " .
Bear in mind though , that we are still here nine years later , after one of the worse mergers in history , the dot-com bust , buy out negotiations AND the deepest recession in recent times .
It certainly has n't been easy , but the company has staked out a portion of the landscape and has managed to stay standing upright throughout .
Considering that most of us are actually in favor of the spin-off means that this is unlikely to change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, I feel bad for those that still work at the company, and users still chained to their internet services for some reason or other.Don't feel bad at all, at least for the employees.
Most of the employees are rather positive about the change and the new CEO, if today's meeting in Dulles is any indicator.
There is now actually some hope that we will be allowed to be a company that understands how to sell internet services and content again.
We actually have a rather large space staked out on the Internet which can be enlarged significantly, as well as better managed.AOL hasn't been about access for years now.
We still have a rather large number of people who use AOL as an ISP, despite firing the whole marketing staff a few years ago.
So much so that there is actually something of a drive to pay attention to that segment again, instead of letting it die off.Still, while the client hasn't died out, most of the work is happening on the content end.
I recall some one posting here that says that we have "Engadget" and a few other blogs.
Actually "a few" blogs at last count was more like a couple dozen blogs in the top 100.No one here is pretending that we're in the same place as Google, but at the same time, we're not trying to be in the same space as Google.
We'll compete in some places and cooperate or defer to Google in others.
For instance, Google is in the business of aggregating News, we are now in the business of producing News, having started to hire journalists from the fading print journalism sector to actually author content.
Should the new model be fully realized, we will be in a very good position to actually lead coverage in certain areas and generate much better experiences for users, which will in turn be appreciated by advertisers.Of course, after ten years or so of problems and layoffs, no one at AOL believes a turnaround is going to be easy, or that we will be the powerhouse that once could be confused with "the Intarwebs".
Bear in mind though, that we are still here nine years later, after one of the worse mergers in history, the dot-com bust, buy out negotiations AND the deepest recession in recent times.
It certainly hasn't been easy, but the company has staked out a portion of the landscape and has managed to stay standing upright throughout.
Considering that most of us are actually in favor of the spin-off means that this is unlikely to change.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146435</id>
	<title>AOL was WHAT?</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1243609800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"Perhaps AOL would have regained some speed and become the prominent household name it once was, instead of being that company who sent us all the free coasters."</i></p><p>They were ever anything else?</p><p>I always saw AOL as the online service for people who didn't want to type. Was there ever a time AOL had, like, actual street cred?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Perhaps AOL would have regained some speed and become the prominent household name it once was , instead of being that company who sent us all the free coasters .
" They were ever anything else ? I always saw AOL as the online service for people who did n't want to type .
Was there ever a time AOL had , like , actual street cred ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Perhaps AOL would have regained some speed and become the prominent household name it once was, instead of being that company who sent us all the free coasters.
"They were ever anything else?I always saw AOL as the online service for people who didn't want to type.
Was there ever a time AOL had, like, actual street cred?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28154865</id>
	<title>Re:Ted Turner: The merger was "better than sex".</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243697520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One can actually question Levin's sanity at that point. I believe Levin had recently lost one of his children, and that severely affected his judgment. The merger was either a product of his delusions, or a way for him to suck as much money out of his company as possible before bailing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One can actually question Levin 's sanity at that point .
I believe Levin had recently lost one of his children , and that severely affected his judgment .
The merger was either a product of his delusions , or a way for him to suck as much money out of his company as possible before bailing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One can actually question Levin's sanity at that point.
I believe Levin had recently lost one of his children, and that severely affected his judgment.
The merger was either a product of his delusions, or a way for him to suck as much money out of his company as possible before bailing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146533</id>
	<title>Re:Ted Turner: The merger was "better than sex".</title>
	<author>scwizard</author>
	<datestamp>1243611120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>For years, and I suppose even now, an AOL email address meant that the owner of the address didn't have any technically knowledgeable friends.</i>"<br>
*wince*<br>
It took like a year of trying to convince my friend's parents to switch before they finally did. It even took way too long than it should have to convince my friend.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" For years , and I suppose even now , an AOL email address meant that the owner of the address did n't have any technically knowledgeable friends .
" * wince * It took like a year of trying to convince my friend 's parents to switch before they finally did .
It even took way too long than it should have to convince my friend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"For years, and I suppose even now, an AOL email address meant that the owner of the address didn't have any technically knowledgeable friends.
"
*wince*
It took like a year of trying to convince my friend's parents to switch before they finally did.
It even took way too long than it should have to convince my friend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28147533</id>
	<title>Insightful?</title>
	<author>msimm</author>
	<datestamp>1243625040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You joking right? You know they have a little advertising wing right? Platform-A, advertising.com? Ring any bells?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You joking right ?
You know they have a little advertising wing right ?
Platform-A , advertising.com ?
Ring any bells ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You joking right?
You know they have a little advertising wing right?
Platform-A, advertising.com?
Ring any bells?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145819</id>
	<title>ac confirms you suck my cock</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243603560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love the way you fondle my balls!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love the way you fondle my balls !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love the way you fondle my balls!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145941</id>
	<title>Re:AOL==coasters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243604400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&gt; Perhaps AOL would have regained some speed and become the prominent household name it
&gt; once was, instead of being that company who sent us all the free coasters.</p><p>Was it ever anything else?  (I didn't actually get very many, though.)</p></div><p>I think a better reason for failure is that, quite simply, it was a bad idea which served its purpose only for a while until everyone realized that something else was far better. Yeah, the people behind it hate seeing it that way though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Perhaps AOL would have regained some speed and become the prominent household name it &gt; once was , instead of being that company who sent us all the free coasters.Was it ever anything else ?
( I did n't actually get very many , though .
) I think a better reason for failure is that , quite simply , it was a bad idea which served its purpose only for a while until everyone realized that something else was far better .
Yeah , the people behind it hate seeing it that way though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Perhaps AOL would have regained some speed and become the prominent household name it
&gt; once was, instead of being that company who sent us all the free coasters.Was it ever anything else?
(I didn't actually get very many, though.
)I think a better reason for failure is that, quite simply, it was a bad idea which served its purpose only for a while until everyone realized that something else was far better.
Yeah, the people behind it hate seeing it that way though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28148043</id>
	<title>AOL turned sour, a raw deal for members</title>
	<author>Bob\_Who</author>
	<datestamp>1243676880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I gotta say that AOL was destined to fail for the same reason GM and Enron and sub prime lenders crashed: Its a RAW DEAL. I was a VERY EARLY adopter of AOL. Back in the day of floppy mailers (way before CD) I was already on a local BBS (Nitelog now Redshift.com) with my brand new 486 with math co processor, Windows 3.0 and an new super blinding fast 14.4 modem (maybe lower) and I thought it was go cool to be able to leave the dos 5 command line, and be in GUI land. But honestly, my enthusiasm for AOL decayed into resentment. Soon these jerks were like the phone company, the bad checking account, or fine print on the policy or credit. Like every other corporate pig in America, it became a finely tuned rip off and maze of obfuscation. There billing practices were ridiculous: you could open accounts all day without any obstacle, but to close an account and get them off of your checking account you had to wait on hold for hours, and then do it again month after month. But worse than that, AOL treated the internet like there own property, and they had many Americans fooled into thinking that the service and experience was entirely proprietary. People who were unsophisticated or inexperienced would pay their rip off $23.95/month (or $2/hour for some suckers) because they were misled into thinking that was their only way to keep email and access to websites. For YEARS they persisted to ever charge, over bill, refuse to cancel service in a timely fashion. There were literally THOUSANDS of "WHY AOL SUCKS" websites popping up everywhere. I really resented the wool that they pooled over many peoples eyes...but how long did they think they could get away with it ? Did they actually expect customers to stay when suddenly Net Zero and a bunch of other dial ups were FREE by the mid 90's? Steve Case cashed in and sold out. He was no Ted Turner. But Corporate American Media had an appetite to EXPLOIT the customer and so that merger was a marriage mad in hell. Severs them right for screwing everyone over, they get screwed too. Its another Web Van, in the end. Only Web Van was good to their customers...the 10 of us. Look at the corporate landscape now: only monopolies retain their customers...but not forever. I dumped Sprint Cellular, Microsoft, Comcast, and B of A, and Visa, AT&amp;T, GM, GE, and Exxon for the same reason: I'm tired of the fine print, the add on fees, and the policy to always punish regular customers for being dumb enough to stay. Good rates are reserved for strangers or stolen business, but if you're a regular then MAKE THEM PAY. Well, these jerks got rich for a while, but I'll avoid ever doing business with them. When did American Business ethics degrade to the point where screwing the customer is the long range strategy and any value offered is a tactic like bait on a hook. Are we all numb in the head? Don't do business with parasites. Just because we have a debt economy doesn't mean we have to take that crap from them ever. Grow up shareholders: if we don't get value, then neither will you. Its simple, its the Golden Rule. AOL, A-hole-hell, good riddance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I got ta say that AOL was destined to fail for the same reason GM and Enron and sub prime lenders crashed : Its a RAW DEAL .
I was a VERY EARLY adopter of AOL .
Back in the day of floppy mailers ( way before CD ) I was already on a local BBS ( Nitelog now Redshift.com ) with my brand new 486 with math co processor , Windows 3.0 and an new super blinding fast 14.4 modem ( maybe lower ) and I thought it was go cool to be able to leave the dos 5 command line , and be in GUI land .
But honestly , my enthusiasm for AOL decayed into resentment .
Soon these jerks were like the phone company , the bad checking account , or fine print on the policy or credit .
Like every other corporate pig in America , it became a finely tuned rip off and maze of obfuscation .
There billing practices were ridiculous : you could open accounts all day without any obstacle , but to close an account and get them off of your checking account you had to wait on hold for hours , and then do it again month after month .
But worse than that , AOL treated the internet like there own property , and they had many Americans fooled into thinking that the service and experience was entirely proprietary .
People who were unsophisticated or inexperienced would pay their rip off $ 23.95/month ( or $ 2/hour for some suckers ) because they were misled into thinking that was their only way to keep email and access to websites .
For YEARS they persisted to ever charge , over bill , refuse to cancel service in a timely fashion .
There were literally THOUSANDS of " WHY AOL SUCKS " websites popping up everywhere .
I really resented the wool that they pooled over many peoples eyes...but how long did they think they could get away with it ?
Did they actually expect customers to stay when suddenly Net Zero and a bunch of other dial ups were FREE by the mid 90 's ?
Steve Case cashed in and sold out .
He was no Ted Turner .
But Corporate American Media had an appetite to EXPLOIT the customer and so that merger was a marriage mad in hell .
Severs them right for screwing everyone over , they get screwed too .
Its another Web Van , in the end .
Only Web Van was good to their customers...the 10 of us .
Look at the corporate landscape now : only monopolies retain their customers...but not forever .
I dumped Sprint Cellular , Microsoft , Comcast , and B of A , and Visa , AT&amp;T , GM , GE , and Exxon for the same reason : I 'm tired of the fine print , the add on fees , and the policy to always punish regular customers for being dumb enough to stay .
Good rates are reserved for strangers or stolen business , but if you 're a regular then MAKE THEM PAY .
Well , these jerks got rich for a while , but I 'll avoid ever doing business with them .
When did American Business ethics degrade to the point where screwing the customer is the long range strategy and any value offered is a tactic like bait on a hook .
Are we all numb in the head ?
Do n't do business with parasites .
Just because we have a debt economy does n't mean we have to take that crap from them ever .
Grow up shareholders : if we do n't get value , then neither will you .
Its simple , its the Golden Rule .
AOL , A-hole-hell , good riddance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I gotta say that AOL was destined to fail for the same reason GM and Enron and sub prime lenders crashed: Its a RAW DEAL.
I was a VERY EARLY adopter of AOL.
Back in the day of floppy mailers (way before CD) I was already on a local BBS (Nitelog now Redshift.com) with my brand new 486 with math co processor, Windows 3.0 and an new super blinding fast 14.4 modem (maybe lower) and I thought it was go cool to be able to leave the dos 5 command line, and be in GUI land.
But honestly, my enthusiasm for AOL decayed into resentment.
Soon these jerks were like the phone company, the bad checking account, or fine print on the policy or credit.
Like every other corporate pig in America, it became a finely tuned rip off and maze of obfuscation.
There billing practices were ridiculous: you could open accounts all day without any obstacle, but to close an account and get them off of your checking account you had to wait on hold for hours, and then do it again month after month.
But worse than that, AOL treated the internet like there own property, and they had many Americans fooled into thinking that the service and experience was entirely proprietary.
People who were unsophisticated or inexperienced would pay their rip off $23.95/month (or $2/hour for some suckers) because they were misled into thinking that was their only way to keep email and access to websites.
For YEARS they persisted to ever charge, over bill, refuse to cancel service in a timely fashion.
There were literally THOUSANDS of "WHY AOL SUCKS" websites popping up everywhere.
I really resented the wool that they pooled over many peoples eyes...but how long did they think they could get away with it ?
Did they actually expect customers to stay when suddenly Net Zero and a bunch of other dial ups were FREE by the mid 90's?
Steve Case cashed in and sold out.
He was no Ted Turner.
But Corporate American Media had an appetite to EXPLOIT the customer and so that merger was a marriage mad in hell.
Severs them right for screwing everyone over, they get screwed too.
Its another Web Van, in the end.
Only Web Van was good to their customers...the 10 of us.
Look at the corporate landscape now: only monopolies retain their customers...but not forever.
I dumped Sprint Cellular, Microsoft, Comcast, and B of A, and Visa, AT&amp;T, GM, GE, and Exxon for the same reason: I'm tired of the fine print, the add on fees, and the policy to always punish regular customers for being dumb enough to stay.
Good rates are reserved for strangers or stolen business, but if you're a regular then MAKE THEM PAY.
Well, these jerks got rich for a while, but I'll avoid ever doing business with them.
When did American Business ethics degrade to the point where screwing the customer is the long range strategy and any value offered is a tactic like bait on a hook.
Are we all numb in the head?
Don't do business with parasites.
Just because we have a debt economy doesn't mean we have to take that crap from them ever.
Grow up shareholders: if we don't get value, then neither will you.
Its simple, its the Golden Rule.
AOL, A-hole-hell, good riddance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28147005</id>
	<title>Re:Coasters?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1243616820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In my day they sent out floppy disks. You know, the kind that could be erased and <b>something useful put on them</b>. It was great!</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Are you saying that AOL coaster CDs couldn't have useful things put on top of them?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my day they sent out floppy disks .
You know , the kind that could be erased and something useful put on them .
It was great !
Are you saying that AOL coaster CDs could n't have useful things put on top of them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my day they sent out floppy disks.
You know, the kind that could be erased and something useful put on them.
It was great!
Are you saying that AOL coaster CDs couldn't have useful things put on top of them?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146283</id>
	<title>Hey AOL...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243608060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've got FAIL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've got FAIL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've got FAIL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146037</id>
	<title>Re:Why does Google have a stake in AOL?</title>
	<author>LordKaT</author>
	<datestamp>1243605240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121601892.html" title="washingtonpost.com">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121601892.html</a> [washingtonpost.com]</p><p>Essentially Google gave AOL a lifeline so they (Google) could penetrate further into the online advertising market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121601892.html [ washingtonpost.com ] Essentially Google gave AOL a lifeline so they ( Google ) could penetrate further into the online advertising market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121601892.html [washingtonpost.com]Essentially Google gave AOL a lifeline so they (Google) could penetrate further into the online advertising market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146813</id>
	<title>Re:AOL was WHAT?</title>
	<author>eln</author>
	<datestamp>1243614720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AOL was responsible for Eternal September...so whatever the opposite of street cred is, that's what they've got.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AOL was responsible for Eternal September...so whatever the opposite of street cred is , that 's what they 've got .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AOL was responsible for Eternal September...so whatever the opposite of street cred is, that's what they've got.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146095</id>
	<title>Re:Web verticalization</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1243605900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't mind em.. just never liked AOL's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. I also didn't care much for Yahoo either, but Excite has gone to crap over the years so I gave em a try.. Then tried my providers (att) which is a Yahoo hybrid I guess.. and that's where I'm at today.. Yes I can do and find all the things separately, but I kind of like having a customized starting point, which I can use or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't mind em.. just never liked AOL 's .. I also did n't care much for Yahoo either , but Excite has gone to crap over the years so I gave em a try.. Then tried my providers ( att ) which is a Yahoo hybrid I guess.. and that 's where I 'm at today.. Yes I can do and find all the things separately , but I kind of like having a customized starting point , which I can use or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't mind em.. just never liked AOL's .. I also didn't care much for Yahoo either, but Excite has gone to crap over the years so I gave em a try.. Then tried my providers (att) which is a Yahoo hybrid I guess.. and that's where I'm at today.. Yes I can do and find all the things separately, but I kind of like having a customized starting point, which I can use or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146071</id>
	<title>The appeal of AOL</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1243605600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>was mostly to people who couldn't figure out how to set up their Dialup account for Internet Access. One AOL install CD and they were on the Internet. Plus they had access to the Time/Warner media empire via the AOL search engine.</p><p>But now most operating systems have Wizards to guide ISP setup just as easy as the AOL Install CD and most Broadband ISPS have install CDs to set up DSL/Cable Modems and Routers. Plus the media is all over the Internet and not just in an AOL search database. So really what need is there for AOL anymore?</p><p>The only advantage for AOL is for those people who cannot get broadband but need a local call-in number that most other ISP's don't offer. I remember bringing my laptop to Branson, Missouri and my NetZero Free Internet dial-up account on my laptop could not get a local Branson number (From Branson for some reason calling Springfield and Joplin numbers where toll access at the Time Sharing Condos and are considered long distance and hence charged more on the bill even if they are in the same area code), but the people at the Time Sharing Condo said that AOL had several local numbers that work with their AOL software.</p><p>But now with USB G3 based modems you can get an Internet connection almost anywhere for $40/month or lower. Plus many places offer free Wifi. So there isn't much need for dial-up access local numbers anymore. Cricket has a pay as you go plan, so you can pay for G3 access before you go on vacation and have a whole month to use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>was mostly to people who could n't figure out how to set up their Dialup account for Internet Access .
One AOL install CD and they were on the Internet .
Plus they had access to the Time/Warner media empire via the AOL search engine.But now most operating systems have Wizards to guide ISP setup just as easy as the AOL Install CD and most Broadband ISPS have install CDs to set up DSL/Cable Modems and Routers .
Plus the media is all over the Internet and not just in an AOL search database .
So really what need is there for AOL anymore ? The only advantage for AOL is for those people who can not get broadband but need a local call-in number that most other ISP 's do n't offer .
I remember bringing my laptop to Branson , Missouri and my NetZero Free Internet dial-up account on my laptop could not get a local Branson number ( From Branson for some reason calling Springfield and Joplin numbers where toll access at the Time Sharing Condos and are considered long distance and hence charged more on the bill even if they are in the same area code ) , but the people at the Time Sharing Condo said that AOL had several local numbers that work with their AOL software.But now with USB G3 based modems you can get an Internet connection almost anywhere for $ 40/month or lower .
Plus many places offer free Wifi .
So there is n't much need for dial-up access local numbers anymore .
Cricket has a pay as you go plan , so you can pay for G3 access before you go on vacation and have a whole month to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>was mostly to people who couldn't figure out how to set up their Dialup account for Internet Access.
One AOL install CD and they were on the Internet.
Plus they had access to the Time/Warner media empire via the AOL search engine.But now most operating systems have Wizards to guide ISP setup just as easy as the AOL Install CD and most Broadband ISPS have install CDs to set up DSL/Cable Modems and Routers.
Plus the media is all over the Internet and not just in an AOL search database.
So really what need is there for AOL anymore?The only advantage for AOL is for those people who cannot get broadband but need a local call-in number that most other ISP's don't offer.
I remember bringing my laptop to Branson, Missouri and my NetZero Free Internet dial-up account on my laptop could not get a local Branson number (From Branson for some reason calling Springfield and Joplin numbers where toll access at the Time Sharing Condos and are considered long distance and hence charged more on the bill even if they are in the same area code), but the people at the Time Sharing Condo said that AOL had several local numbers that work with their AOL software.But now with USB G3 based modems you can get an Internet connection almost anywhere for $40/month or lower.
Plus many places offer free Wifi.
So there isn't much need for dial-up access local numbers anymore.
Cricket has a pay as you go plan, so you can pay for G3 access before you go on vacation and have a whole month to use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145817</id>
	<title>Web verticalization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243603560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do we really need those all-inclusive portals anymore ? Time Warner might be thinking along those lines..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we really need those all-inclusive portals anymore ?
Time Warner might be thinking along those lines. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we really need those all-inclusive portals anymore ?
Time Warner might be thinking along those lines..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28148645</id>
	<title>Time Warner big and decentralized</title>
	<author>mcubed</author>
	<datestamp>1243689240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with the notion of Time Warner making AOL an exclusive media outlet is that Time Warner isn't the monolithic corporation many like to think it is.  This is less true today than it was back when the merger (which was really, as others have mentioned, AOL buying Time Warner, even though it was spun to the media as a merger) took place, but it still operates in a somewhat looser fashion than many corporate behemoths.  Time Inc. was always fairly decentralized, with different divisions setting their own policies and procedures.  The Time Inc. &amp; Warner Communications merger that created TW made it moreso.  The idea that the corporate powers on high would just hand down orders to the music, publishing, magazine and movie divisions about where they would distribute their product or whom would be their "outlet" is pretty ridiculous if you knew anything about how Time Warner operated, about the wide-ranging, across-the-board autonomy most divisions had even while being wholly owned by Time Warner.</p><p>Then there was the problem of Road Runner, which no one ever solved.  Road Runner (now, I believe, Time Warner Cable) -- rightly, in my view -- saw AOL as competition, not as a potential partner.  Road Runner was profitable and growing.  Even the most fervent AOL champions within Time Warner didn't want to piss off Road Runner, nor be seen as responsible for killing the golden goose (or, at least, for slowing its production of eggs).  Road Runner had done just fine striking its own deals with Time Warner properties (like HBO) and non-TW properties alike.  The truth is, Time Warner could have done everything it hoped to do with AOL on its own -- it already had the necessary ingredients under the corporate umbrella -- and it could've done it without ruffling the feathers that the AOL deal ruffled or introducing yet another foreign corporate culture into a mix that was already a wildly divergent mix of sometimes clashing cultures.  The mystifying thing, to me, about the whole fiasco is why Time Warner ever thought it needed AOL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with the notion of Time Warner making AOL an exclusive media outlet is that Time Warner is n't the monolithic corporation many like to think it is .
This is less true today than it was back when the merger ( which was really , as others have mentioned , AOL buying Time Warner , even though it was spun to the media as a merger ) took place , but it still operates in a somewhat looser fashion than many corporate behemoths .
Time Inc. was always fairly decentralized , with different divisions setting their own policies and procedures .
The Time Inc. &amp; Warner Communications merger that created TW made it moreso .
The idea that the corporate powers on high would just hand down orders to the music , publishing , magazine and movie divisions about where they would distribute their product or whom would be their " outlet " is pretty ridiculous if you knew anything about how Time Warner operated , about the wide-ranging , across-the-board autonomy most divisions had even while being wholly owned by Time Warner.Then there was the problem of Road Runner , which no one ever solved .
Road Runner ( now , I believe , Time Warner Cable ) -- rightly , in my view -- saw AOL as competition , not as a potential partner .
Road Runner was profitable and growing .
Even the most fervent AOL champions within Time Warner did n't want to piss off Road Runner , nor be seen as responsible for killing the golden goose ( or , at least , for slowing its production of eggs ) .
Road Runner had done just fine striking its own deals with Time Warner properties ( like HBO ) and non-TW properties alike .
The truth is , Time Warner could have done everything it hoped to do with AOL on its own -- it already had the necessary ingredients under the corporate umbrella -- and it could 've done it without ruffling the feathers that the AOL deal ruffled or introducing yet another foreign corporate culture into a mix that was already a wildly divergent mix of sometimes clashing cultures .
The mystifying thing , to me , about the whole fiasco is why Time Warner ever thought it needed AOL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with the notion of Time Warner making AOL an exclusive media outlet is that Time Warner isn't the monolithic corporation many like to think it is.
This is less true today than it was back when the merger (which was really, as others have mentioned, AOL buying Time Warner, even though it was spun to the media as a merger) took place, but it still operates in a somewhat looser fashion than many corporate behemoths.
Time Inc. was always fairly decentralized, with different divisions setting their own policies and procedures.
The Time Inc. &amp; Warner Communications merger that created TW made it moreso.
The idea that the corporate powers on high would just hand down orders to the music, publishing, magazine and movie divisions about where they would distribute their product or whom would be their "outlet" is pretty ridiculous if you knew anything about how Time Warner operated, about the wide-ranging, across-the-board autonomy most divisions had even while being wholly owned by Time Warner.Then there was the problem of Road Runner, which no one ever solved.
Road Runner (now, I believe, Time Warner Cable) -- rightly, in my view -- saw AOL as competition, not as a potential partner.
Road Runner was profitable and growing.
Even the most fervent AOL champions within Time Warner didn't want to piss off Road Runner, nor be seen as responsible for killing the golden goose (or, at least, for slowing its production of eggs).
Road Runner had done just fine striking its own deals with Time Warner properties (like HBO) and non-TW properties alike.
The truth is, Time Warner could have done everything it hoped to do with AOL on its own -- it already had the necessary ingredients under the corporate umbrella -- and it could've done it without ruffling the feathers that the AOL deal ruffled or introducing yet another foreign corporate culture into a mix that was already a wildly divergent mix of sometimes clashing cultures.
The mystifying thing, to me, about the whole fiasco is why Time Warner ever thought it needed AOL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145863</id>
	<title>0\% Complete</title>
	<author>Sduic</author>
	<datestamp>1243603740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...AOL as an exclusive media outlet for movies...</p></div><p>Over dial-up, I think it would have been cheaper to GO to Hollywood (plus it might be finished downloading when you return)!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...AOL as an exclusive media outlet for movies...Over dial-up , I think it would have been cheaper to GO to Hollywood ( plus it might be finished downloading when you return ) !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...AOL as an exclusive media outlet for movies...Over dial-up, I think it would have been cheaper to GO to Hollywood (plus it might be finished downloading when you return)!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146403</id>
	<title>obama sides with racists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243609260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>as long as you're not right it's ok to be racist in his eyes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>as long as you 're not right it 's ok to be racist in his eyes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as long as you're not right it's ok to be racist in his eyes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146035</id>
	<title>Ted Turner: The merger was "better than sex".</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243605240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Do we really need those all-inclusive portals anymore?"</i>

<br> <br>There was never a need for all-inclusive portals after the arrival of
the internet. AOL was trying to keep less-knowledgeable people inside its own
sites, and away from the internet, so it could make more money from its ads.
For years, and I suppose even now, an AOL email address meant that the owner
of the address didn't have any technically knowledgeable friends.

<br> <br>The 88 BILLION dollars lost when Time Warner bought AOL has been
considered to be the worst business decision of all time. Maybe the French
selling the Louisiana Purchase to the U.S. government was a worse decision.
But, if we include decisions made by government, then even the U.S. invading
Iraq lost more money.

<br> <br>At the time, even people with little technical knowledge knew that AOL
was not a good company to buy.

<br> <br>Time Warner's CEO, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald\_Levin" title="wikipedia.org">Gerald M.
Levin</a> [wikipedia.org], who made the decision, called himself an <a href="http://www.ninamunk.com/foolsInRush.htm" title="ninamunk.com">"imperial CEO"</a> [ninamunk.com].
He made huge amounts of money, and didn't seem to care that he caused enormous
troubles for his company, and for all its employees that owned stock.

<br> <br>Just before the merger, Ted Turner called the merger <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqDn4YNVq3c" title="youtube.com">"better than
sex"</a> [youtube.com]. The problem continues, of course. People with no technical knowledge
assume that, if they don't know something, there is nothing to know.
Technically knowledgeable people get amazingly little respect.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Do we really need those all-inclusive portals anymore ?
" There was never a need for all-inclusive portals after the arrival of the internet .
AOL was trying to keep less-knowledgeable people inside its own sites , and away from the internet , so it could make more money from its ads .
For years , and I suppose even now , an AOL email address meant that the owner of the address did n't have any technically knowledgeable friends .
The 88 BILLION dollars lost when Time Warner bought AOL has been considered to be the worst business decision of all time .
Maybe the French selling the Louisiana Purchase to the U.S. government was a worse decision .
But , if we include decisions made by government , then even the U.S. invading Iraq lost more money .
At the time , even people with little technical knowledge knew that AOL was not a good company to buy .
Time Warner 's CEO , Gerald M . Levin [ wikipedia.org ] , who made the decision , called himself an " imperial CEO " [ ninamunk.com ] .
He made huge amounts of money , and did n't seem to care that he caused enormous troubles for his company , and for all its employees that owned stock .
Just before the merger , Ted Turner called the merger " better than sex " [ youtube.com ] .
The problem continues , of course .
People with no technical knowledge assume that , if they do n't know something , there is nothing to know .
Technically knowledgeable people get amazingly little respect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Do we really need those all-inclusive portals anymore?
"

 There was never a need for all-inclusive portals after the arrival of
the internet.
AOL was trying to keep less-knowledgeable people inside its own
sites, and away from the internet, so it could make more money from its ads.
For years, and I suppose even now, an AOL email address meant that the owner
of the address didn't have any technically knowledgeable friends.
The 88 BILLION dollars lost when Time Warner bought AOL has been
considered to be the worst business decision of all time.
Maybe the French
selling the Louisiana Purchase to the U.S. government was a worse decision.
But, if we include decisions made by government, then even the U.S. invading
Iraq lost more money.
At the time, even people with little technical knowledge knew that AOL
was not a good company to buy.
Time Warner's CEO, Gerald M.
Levin [wikipedia.org], who made the decision, called himself an "imperial CEO" [ninamunk.com].
He made huge amounts of money, and didn't seem to care that he caused enormous
troubles for his company, and for all its employees that owned stock.
Just before the merger, Ted Turner called the merger "better than
sex" [youtube.com].
The problem continues, of course.
People with no technical knowledge
assume that, if they don't know something, there is nothing to know.
Technically knowledgeable people get amazingly little respect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28154279</id>
	<title>Re:Chat Giant</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1243691100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AOL dialup also had decent speed in many locations. They still have lots of customers who have no other option than a POTS line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AOL dialup also had decent speed in many locations .
They still have lots of customers who have no other option than a POTS line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AOL dialup also had decent speed in many locations.
They still have lots of customers who have no other option than a POTS line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28167779</id>
	<title>Re:Chat Giant</title>
	<author>vuffi\_raa</author>
	<datestamp>1243870020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>sorry, during that time anyone in the know was on IRC not in AOL chat- that was for grandmas and pedophiles</htmltext>
<tokenext>sorry , during that time anyone in the know was on IRC not in AOL chat- that was for grandmas and pedophiles</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sorry, during that time anyone in the know was on IRC not in AOL chat- that was for grandmas and pedophiles</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145911</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145839</id>
	<title>AOL==coasters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243603620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Perhaps AOL would have regained some speed and become the prominent household name it<br>&gt; once was, instead of being that company who sent us all the free coasters.</p><p>Was it ever anything else?  (I didn't actually get very many, though.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Perhaps AOL would have regained some speed and become the prominent household name it &gt; once was , instead of being that company who sent us all the free coasters.Was it ever anything else ?
( I did n't actually get very many , though .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Perhaps AOL would have regained some speed and become the prominent household name it&gt; once was, instead of being that company who sent us all the free coasters.Was it ever anything else?
(I didn't actually get very many, though.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28148687</id>
	<title>a totally squandered opportunity</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1243690020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A totally squandered opportunity. Just when broadband is becoming relatively cheap and ubiquitous and we are moving into the era of rich online content, pay-for-view media, online gaming etc. Where is the AOL version of the iPlayer. Where are the AOL set-top boxes, with the pay for view content. They had the content, they had the network infrastructure, and what did they do with it, nothing !</htmltext>
<tokenext>A totally squandered opportunity .
Just when broadband is becoming relatively cheap and ubiquitous and we are moving into the era of rich online content , pay-for-view media , online gaming etc .
Where is the AOL version of the iPlayer .
Where are the AOL set-top boxes , with the pay for view content .
They had the content , they had the network infrastructure , and what did they do with it , nothing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A totally squandered opportunity.
Just when broadband is becoming relatively cheap and ubiquitous and we are moving into the era of rich online content, pay-for-view media, online gaming etc.
Where is the AOL version of the iPlayer.
Where are the AOL set-top boxes, with the pay for view content.
They had the content, they had the network infrastructure, and what did they do with it, nothing !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146225</id>
	<title>"I Told You So!!"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243607460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah, how long I've been waiting to say that!!
<p>
Yes, from the beginning, the Time Warner+AOL deal was a "Match made in heaven" - if only by "heaven", you mean some board room full of people who know nothing about the internet, or people using it, other than what they've read in the "Wall Street Journal.".
</p><p>
Now wait, before you click that "troll" popup, let me explain:
</p><p>
When the deal went together, the "rationale", was that the joint venture would allow "Time Warner", with all it's "media content" (i.e. old Bugs Bunny cartoons) to leverage "AOL" for it's "distribution" method (i.e. crappy dial-up Internet for technologically ignorant users) into a powerhouse.
</p><p>
While you could offer little debate for why this doesn't look good on paper, in the real-world, it just made no sense. Content distributors can go after video, TV, movies, and the entire Internet as a whole, and AOL needs to carry (and deliver) content from all the providers.
</p><p>
This is the same rationale that made NBC think that the needed to partner with Microsoft to start a news web site.
</p><p>
You could argue that my points are wrong or right - but in the end, I knew this was happen, so I'm happy to say
</p><p>
<b>"I told you so!!"</b>
</p><p>
On second though, go ahead - hit the "Troll" button!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , how long I 've been waiting to say that ! !
Yes , from the beginning , the Time Warner + AOL deal was a " Match made in heaven " - if only by " heaven " , you mean some board room full of people who know nothing about the internet , or people using it , other than what they 've read in the " Wall Street Journal. " .
Now wait , before you click that " troll " popup , let me explain : When the deal went together , the " rationale " , was that the joint venture would allow " Time Warner " , with all it 's " media content " ( i.e .
old Bugs Bunny cartoons ) to leverage " AOL " for it 's " distribution " method ( i.e .
crappy dial-up Internet for technologically ignorant users ) into a powerhouse .
While you could offer little debate for why this does n't look good on paper , in the real-world , it just made no sense .
Content distributors can go after video , TV , movies , and the entire Internet as a whole , and AOL needs to carry ( and deliver ) content from all the providers .
This is the same rationale that made NBC think that the needed to partner with Microsoft to start a news web site .
You could argue that my points are wrong or right - but in the end , I knew this was happen , so I 'm happy to say " I told you so ! !
" On second though , go ahead - hit the " Troll " button !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, how long I've been waiting to say that!!
Yes, from the beginning, the Time Warner+AOL deal was a "Match made in heaven" - if only by "heaven", you mean some board room full of people who know nothing about the internet, or people using it, other than what they've read in the "Wall Street Journal.".
Now wait, before you click that "troll" popup, let me explain:

When the deal went together, the "rationale", was that the joint venture would allow "Time Warner", with all it's "media content" (i.e.
old Bugs Bunny cartoons) to leverage "AOL" for it's "distribution" method (i.e.
crappy dial-up Internet for technologically ignorant users) into a powerhouse.
While you could offer little debate for why this doesn't look good on paper, in the real-world, it just made no sense.
Content distributors can go after video, TV, movies, and the entire Internet as a whole, and AOL needs to carry (and deliver) content from all the providers.
This is the same rationale that made NBC think that the needed to partner with Microsoft to start a news web site.
You could argue that my points are wrong or right - but in the end, I knew this was happen, so I'm happy to say

"I told you so!!
"

On second though, go ahead - hit the "Troll" button!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146641</id>
	<title>Re:AOL==coasters</title>
	<author>tsalmark</author>
	<datestamp>1243612320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this may be the end of AOL, but I would not proclaim them dead just yet. AOL is a Phoenix, or at least has risen from the ashes, against all odds a few times already.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this may be the end of AOL , but I would not proclaim them dead just yet .
AOL is a Phoenix , or at least has risen from the ashes , against all odds a few times already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this may be the end of AOL, but I would not proclaim them dead just yet.
AOL is a Phoenix, or at least has risen from the ashes, against all odds a few times already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145937</id>
	<title>Filing for an IPO is a lot of work...</title>
	<author>religious freak</author>
	<datestamp>1243604340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>... and so is a bankruptcy filling.  To save effort and energy, they might as well do both at the same time.  <br> <br>
<i>(Disclosure: I saw this post on a different blog, and I'm blatantly stealing it.. ah, now my conscience feels better)</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and so is a bankruptcy filling .
To save effort and energy , they might as well do both at the same time .
( Disclosure : I saw this post on a different blog , and I 'm blatantly stealing it.. ah , now my conscience feels better )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and so is a bankruptcy filling.
To save effort and energy, they might as well do both at the same time.
(Disclosure: I saw this post on a different blog, and I'm blatantly stealing it.. ah, now my conscience feels better)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28156215</id>
	<title>Re:Ted Turner: The merger was "better than sex".</title>
	<author>doom</author>
	<datestamp>1243712880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The 88 BILLION dollars lost when Time Warner bought AOL has been considered to be the worst business decision of all time.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
At the time, even people with little technical knowledge knew that AOL was not a good company to buy.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
It isn't so much that Time Warner didn't understand technology, it's that AOL lied their asses off in their accounting.  A remark I heard from an executive-type around then: "They cooked the books, and they're getting away with it!"
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 88 BILLION dollars lost when Time Warner bought AOL has been considered to be the worst business decision of all time .
.. . At the time , even people with little technical knowledge knew that AOL was not a good company to buy .
It is n't so much that Time Warner did n't understand technology , it 's that AOL lied their asses off in their accounting .
A remark I heard from an executive-type around then : " They cooked the books , and they 're getting away with it !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 88 BILLION dollars lost when Time Warner bought AOL has been considered to be the worst business decision of all time.
...
At the time, even people with little technical knowledge knew that AOL was not a good company to buy.
It isn't so much that Time Warner didn't understand technology, it's that AOL lied their asses off in their accounting.
A remark I heard from an executive-type around then: "They cooked the books, and they're getting away with it!
"

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28152367</id>
	<title>Re:Ted Turner: The merger was "better than sex".</title>
	<author>Jay L</author>
	<datestamp>1243678020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>not just a colossally dumb idea, but a massive scam carried out by one of the craftiest con artists of our time... It must have been obvious to them at the time that it was a shit deal, but the short term payoff was so powerfully compelling that they went ahead anyway.</p></div></blockquote><p>Not really.  The idea of AOL and Time Warner combining forces seemed like a huge win for both sides. Yes, it was obvious that dialup itself had no future. But like any other company that's knowingly facing disruptive innovation, we were (overly) confident that we'd find a third business model. Remember, we had already gone from a model that billed consumers by the hour and *paid* companies for their online presence to a model that *charged* those companies for what was now considered "advertising"; meanwhile, all of our initial competition was gone except for the ones that we bought.  Anything else seemed easy.</p><p>By 2000, we were already forming (ill-fated) DSL partnerships with telcos, and Time Warner of course had Road Runner. AOL was still the largest ISP by far, and dialup wasn't dying that slowly, so there was plenty of time to transition. (Hell, they still have some 6 million subscribers today, for no reason I can think of.)</p><p>AOL was good at online services, but no good at content; Time Warner was the converse (remember Pathfinder?). Bringing them together seemed as obvious as peanut butter and chocolate. The failure of the merger was a corporate culture and power clash, plain and simple.</p><p>Now, I'm talking about the *idea*. I don't remember the deal terms, and you seem to be touching on both points; the deal itself could well have been a lousy one for Time Warner. But the idea? Coulda been great.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>not just a colossally dumb idea , but a massive scam carried out by one of the craftiest con artists of our time... It must have been obvious to them at the time that it was a shit deal , but the short term payoff was so powerfully compelling that they went ahead anyway.Not really .
The idea of AOL and Time Warner combining forces seemed like a huge win for both sides .
Yes , it was obvious that dialup itself had no future .
But like any other company that 's knowingly facing disruptive innovation , we were ( overly ) confident that we 'd find a third business model .
Remember , we had already gone from a model that billed consumers by the hour and * paid * companies for their online presence to a model that * charged * those companies for what was now considered " advertising " ; meanwhile , all of our initial competition was gone except for the ones that we bought .
Anything else seemed easy.By 2000 , we were already forming ( ill-fated ) DSL partnerships with telcos , and Time Warner of course had Road Runner .
AOL was still the largest ISP by far , and dialup was n't dying that slowly , so there was plenty of time to transition .
( Hell , they still have some 6 million subscribers today , for no reason I can think of .
) AOL was good at online services , but no good at content ; Time Warner was the converse ( remember Pathfinder ? ) .
Bringing them together seemed as obvious as peanut butter and chocolate .
The failure of the merger was a corporate culture and power clash , plain and simple.Now , I 'm talking about the * idea * .
I do n't remember the deal terms , and you seem to be touching on both points ; the deal itself could well have been a lousy one for Time Warner .
But the idea ?
Coulda been great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not just a colossally dumb idea, but a massive scam carried out by one of the craftiest con artists of our time... It must have been obvious to them at the time that it was a shit deal, but the short term payoff was so powerfully compelling that they went ahead anyway.Not really.
The idea of AOL and Time Warner combining forces seemed like a huge win for both sides.
Yes, it was obvious that dialup itself had no future.
But like any other company that's knowingly facing disruptive innovation, we were (overly) confident that we'd find a third business model.
Remember, we had already gone from a model that billed consumers by the hour and *paid* companies for their online presence to a model that *charged* those companies for what was now considered "advertising"; meanwhile, all of our initial competition was gone except for the ones that we bought.
Anything else seemed easy.By 2000, we were already forming (ill-fated) DSL partnerships with telcos, and Time Warner of course had Road Runner.
AOL was still the largest ISP by far, and dialup wasn't dying that slowly, so there was plenty of time to transition.
(Hell, they still have some 6 million subscribers today, for no reason I can think of.
)AOL was good at online services, but no good at content; Time Warner was the converse (remember Pathfinder?).
Bringing them together seemed as obvious as peanut butter and chocolate.
The failure of the merger was a corporate culture and power clash, plain and simple.Now, I'm talking about the *idea*.
I don't remember the deal terms, and you seem to be touching on both points; the deal itself could well have been a lousy one for Time Warner.
But the idea?
Coulda been great.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146155</id>
	<title>Re:Ted Turner: The merger was "better than sex".</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1243606740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>even the U.S. invading Iraq lost more money.</p></div><p>The US, yes, but what about the people who lobbied for the invasion?</p><p>&lt;/troll&gt;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>even the U.S. invading Iraq lost more money.The US , yes , but what about the people who lobbied for the invasion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>even the U.S. invading Iraq lost more money.The US, yes, but what about the people who lobbied for the invasion?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146035</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_2256242_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_2256242_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_2256242_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28154865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_2256242_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_2256242_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_2256242_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28152367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_2256242_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28152631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_2256242_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_2256242_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_2256242_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28149941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_2256242_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28147533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_2256242_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28147005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_2256242_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_2256242_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28151915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28147453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_2256242_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_2256242_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_2256242_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28147699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_2256242_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28156215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_2256242_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28154279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_2256242_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_2256242_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28148187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_2256242_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28167779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_2256242_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_2256242_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_29_2256242_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28147433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_2256242.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28147453
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28151915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146813
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_2256242.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28154279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28167779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146243
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_2256242.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146035
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146155
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28147433
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28156215
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146515
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146533
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146191
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28152367
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28154865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28148187
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_2256242.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28147461
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_2256242.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28147699
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146495
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_2256242.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146071
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_2256242.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145941
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146641
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_2256242.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146225
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_2256242.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145863
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_2256242.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28149941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28147533
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_2256242.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28147005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28152631
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_29_2256242.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28145881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_29_2256242.28146091
</commentlist>
</conversation>
