<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_10_1923240</id>
	<title>Security Firms Fined Over Never-Ending Subscriptions</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1244662680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">Barence</a> writes <i>"'Security firms Symantec and McAfee have both agreed to pay $375,000 to US authorities after they <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/255649/symantec-and-mcafee-settle-over-autorenewals.html">automatically renewed consumers' subscriptions without their consent</a>.' The two companies were reported to the New York Attorney General after people complained that their credit cards were being charged without their consent. The investigators found that information about the auto-renewals was hidden at the bottom of long web pages or buried in the EULA."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barence writes " 'Security firms Symantec and McAfee have both agreed to pay $ 375,000 to US authorities after they automatically renewed consumers ' subscriptions without their consent .
' The two companies were reported to the New York Attorney General after people complained that their credit cards were being charged without their consent .
The investigators found that information about the auto-renewals was hidden at the bottom of long web pages or buried in the EULA .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barence writes "'Security firms Symantec and McAfee have both agreed to pay $375,000 to US authorities after they automatically renewed consumers' subscriptions without their consent.
' The two companies were reported to the New York Attorney General after people complained that their credit cards were being charged without their consent.
The investigators found that information about the auto-renewals was hidden at the bottom of long web pages or buried in the EULA.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284453</id>
	<title>Re:Humph...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244625060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anybody who is anti-Semitic deserves to get a virus?

I'm confused.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody who is anti-Semitic deserves to get a virus ?
I 'm confused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody who is anti-Semitic deserves to get a virus?
I'm confused.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28287869</id>
	<title>Re:Humph...</title>
	<author>dziban303</author>
	<datestamp>1244642580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anybody who is Anti-Symantec is objectively Pro-Virus.</p></div><p>Anybody who is Anti-Symantec is objectively a Nazi.

Oh. Symantec. Nevermind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody who is Anti-Symantec is objectively Pro-Virus.Anybody who is Anti-Symantec is objectively a Nazi .
Oh. Symantec .
Nevermind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody who is Anti-Symantec is objectively Pro-Virus.Anybody who is Anti-Symantec is objectively a Nazi.
Oh. Symantec.
Nevermind.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285357</id>
	<title>Re:Subscription services and auto-renewal are new?</title>
	<author>SecurityGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1244628780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ya know, the term usually isn't one day.  I don't mind so much saying "Yes, I'd like all that THIS year, too."  Even an auto-renew option is fine.  Just not buried in the legalese that as a practical matter, anyone who isn't hopelessly naive or completely full of crap knows nobody reads.  At least nobody that's not paid to (and yes, I do, when I'm paid to).</p><p>Now that I think about it, the dead-tree magazines I subscribe to stop coming if I don't say I still want them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya know , the term usually is n't one day .
I do n't mind so much saying " Yes , I 'd like all that THIS year , too .
" Even an auto-renew option is fine .
Just not buried in the legalese that as a practical matter , anyone who is n't hopelessly naive or completely full of crap knows nobody reads .
At least nobody that 's not paid to ( and yes , I do , when I 'm paid to ) .Now that I think about it , the dead-tree magazines I subscribe to stop coming if I do n't say I still want them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya know, the term usually isn't one day.
I don't mind so much saying "Yes, I'd like all that THIS year, too.
"  Even an auto-renew option is fine.
Just not buried in the legalese that as a practical matter, anyone who isn't hopelessly naive or completely full of crap knows nobody reads.
At least nobody that's not paid to (and yes, I do, when I'm paid to).Now that I think about it, the dead-tree magazines I subscribe to stop coming if I don't say I still want them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284045</id>
	<title>Fine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244666700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Security firms Symantec and McAfee have both agreed to pay $375,000 to US authorities </i></p><p>And how much are they going to pay to the people they defrauded?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Security firms Symantec and McAfee have both agreed to pay $ 375,000 to US authorities And how much are they going to pay to the people they defrauded ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security firms Symantec and McAfee have both agreed to pay $375,000 to US authorities And how much are they going to pay to the people they defrauded?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28291089</id>
	<title>Re:Pathetic</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1244720580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>$375,000? That's petty change compared to how much they made out of it.</i> <br> <br>Exactly, should not this fine be in addition to repaying all the disputed amounts?</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 375,000 ?
That 's petty change compared to how much they made out of it .
Exactly , should not this fine be in addition to repaying all the disputed amounts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$375,000?
That's petty change compared to how much they made out of it.
Exactly, should not this fine be in addition to repaying all the disputed amounts?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28283999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28286063</id>
	<title>Re:Subscription services and auto-renewal are new?</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1244631240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you buy a 1 year subscription to your magazine, and they roll around and just charge you for year two, and keep going, you would probably be upset.  Symantec isn't doing a "subscription", they are doing a "1 year of updates".</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you buy a 1 year subscription to your magazine , and they roll around and just charge you for year two , and keep going , you would probably be upset .
Symantec is n't doing a " subscription " , they are doing a " 1 year of updates " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you buy a 1 year subscription to your magazine, and they roll around and just charge you for year two, and keep going, you would probably be upset.
Symantec isn't doing a "subscription", they are doing a "1 year of updates".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284741</id>
	<title>Re:Subscription services and auto-renewal are new?</title>
	<author>Kabuthunk</author>
	<datestamp>1244626260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man, sucks to be wherever you live.  Myself, the only things that auto-renew are kinda needed to not die, and our internet.  Rent, and electricity.  Both kinda needed in winter to avoid death.  And for rent I have to sign a paper every time it increases or it won't auto-renew anyway.  And the internet, I simply chose that option, but certainly had the option to manually pay yearly/monthly/whatever.  It was not forced on me.  Same goes for electricity... it's automatic because I chose it to be.</p><p>Car insurance?  Have to pay it manually every year (or broken into 4 times a year in my case).<br>Phone?  Pay as you go.<br>Website? I'm on a 2-year payment plan, not auto-renewing<br>Domain name? Have to manually pay yearly.<br>Gym membership, recreational things (geocaching.com premium account specifically), things like that... all manually renewed.</p><p>In all honesty, I can't even fathom a life in which all payments are automatic.  I think I'd hate having that little control over my earnings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , sucks to be wherever you live .
Myself , the only things that auto-renew are kinda needed to not die , and our internet .
Rent , and electricity .
Both kinda needed in winter to avoid death .
And for rent I have to sign a paper every time it increases or it wo n't auto-renew anyway .
And the internet , I simply chose that option , but certainly had the option to manually pay yearly/monthly/whatever .
It was not forced on me .
Same goes for electricity... it 's automatic because I chose it to be.Car insurance ?
Have to pay it manually every year ( or broken into 4 times a year in my case ) .Phone ?
Pay as you go.Website ?
I 'm on a 2-year payment plan , not auto-renewingDomain name ?
Have to manually pay yearly.Gym membership , recreational things ( geocaching.com premium account specifically ) , things like that... all manually renewed.In all honesty , I ca n't even fathom a life in which all payments are automatic .
I think I 'd hate having that little control over my earnings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, sucks to be wherever you live.
Myself, the only things that auto-renew are kinda needed to not die, and our internet.
Rent, and electricity.
Both kinda needed in winter to avoid death.
And for rent I have to sign a paper every time it increases or it won't auto-renew anyway.
And the internet, I simply chose that option, but certainly had the option to manually pay yearly/monthly/whatever.
It was not forced on me.
Same goes for electricity... it's automatic because I chose it to be.Car insurance?
Have to pay it manually every year (or broken into 4 times a year in my case).Phone?
Pay as you go.Website?
I'm on a 2-year payment plan, not auto-renewingDomain name?
Have to manually pay yearly.Gym membership, recreational things (geocaching.com premium account specifically), things like that... all manually renewed.In all honesty, I can't even fathom a life in which all payments are automatic.
I think I'd hate having that little control over my earnings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284367</id>
	<title>Do I get some of that fine money?</title>
	<author>charleste</author>
	<datestamp>1244624820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&lt;rant&gt;About two years ago, I noticed this after I actually went to their website AND called to cancel prior to renewal.  It still renewed, and the "customer service" rep had the balls to tell me that they couldn't refund my money when I called about it.  I took that one as far up the food chain as I could - including writing an email to the president or whatever, and got the "immediate" response that they wouldn't auto-renew NEXT time.  It took approximately 3 months to get my money back.  ONLY because I had documented my cancellation with workers numbers and crap. I figure they owe me about $600 in time. &lt;/rant&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About two years ago , I noticed this after I actually went to their website AND called to cancel prior to renewal .
It still renewed , and the " customer service " rep had the balls to tell me that they could n't refund my money when I called about it .
I took that one as far up the food chain as I could - including writing an email to the president or whatever , and got the " immediate " response that they would n't auto-renew NEXT time .
It took approximately 3 months to get my money back .
ONLY because I had documented my cancellation with workers numbers and crap .
I figure they owe me about $ 600 in time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About two years ago, I noticed this after I actually went to their website AND called to cancel prior to renewal.
It still renewed, and the "customer service" rep had the balls to tell me that they couldn't refund my money when I called about it.
I took that one as far up the food chain as I could - including writing an email to the president or whatever, and got the "immediate" response that they wouldn't auto-renew NEXT time.
It took approximately 3 months to get my money back.
ONLY because I had documented my cancellation with workers numbers and crap.
I figure they owe me about $600 in time. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284133</id>
	<title>Re:Humph...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244667060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Synamic products = Virus<br>Anti-Synantec = Anti-Virus</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Synamic products = VirusAnti-Synantec = Anti-Virus</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Synamic products = VirusAnti-Synantec = Anti-Virus</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284357</id>
	<title>Malware</title>
	<author>Mr\_eX9</author>
	<datestamp>1244624760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Antivirus companies: The world's only legitimate malware vendors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Antivirus companies : The world 's only legitimate malware vendors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Antivirus companies: The world's only legitimate malware vendors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28287135</id>
	<title>Re:Pathetic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244637420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is common practice amongst the Banks.  Most banks know full well what is being done with the merchant accounts they issue.  The fraud is that nobody along the chain put an end to this.  It's the same risk shifting type of fraud that is at the heart of mortgage mess.... For example...</p><p>http://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/hotnews/berkeley-nutraceuticals-leader-gets-25-years.html</p><p>Berkely Nutraceuticals did this to the tune of 1/2 a BILLION bucks... same fraudulent operating practice.  We have your CC number... so we are going to bill it... no matter what... it's your fault for not REALLY looking closely at the agreement.  (even though the agreement was deliberately deceptive and meant to sucker you into multiple billings - meaning it was FRAUD to begin with)</p><p>Did I mention that I thought this was FRAUD.... ok... I'm done now.</p><p>AngryMan</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is common practice amongst the Banks .
Most banks know full well what is being done with the merchant accounts they issue .
The fraud is that nobody along the chain put an end to this .
It 's the same risk shifting type of fraud that is at the heart of mortgage mess.... For example...http : //www.naturalproductsinsider.com/hotnews/berkeley-nutraceuticals-leader-gets-25-years.htmlBerkely Nutraceuticals did this to the tune of 1/2 a BILLION bucks... same fraudulent operating practice .
We have your CC number... so we are going to bill it... no matter what... it 's your fault for not REALLY looking closely at the agreement .
( even though the agreement was deliberately deceptive and meant to sucker you into multiple billings - meaning it was FRAUD to begin with ) Did I mention that I thought this was FRAUD.... ok... I 'm done now.AngryMan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is common practice amongst the Banks.
Most banks know full well what is being done with the merchant accounts they issue.
The fraud is that nobody along the chain put an end to this.
It's the same risk shifting type of fraud that is at the heart of mortgage mess.... For example...http://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/hotnews/berkeley-nutraceuticals-leader-gets-25-years.htmlBerkely Nutraceuticals did this to the tune of 1/2 a BILLION bucks... same fraudulent operating practice.
We have your CC number... so we are going to bill it... no matter what... it's your fault for not REALLY looking closely at the agreement.
(even though the agreement was deliberately deceptive and meant to sucker you into multiple billings - meaning it was FRAUD to begin with)Did I mention that I thought this was FRAUD.... ok... I'm done now.AngryMan</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28283999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285503</id>
	<title>Re:Do I get some of that fine money?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244629380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it very. . . interesting, that on the McAfee website, you can turn ON the auto-renew yourself through the account management, but to get it turned OFF, you have to contact their customer service reps. What kind of BS is that? I'm getting my parents away from McAfee, and I myself left McAfee a couple years back. They used to be a good company to deal with. Now, I just don't trust them anymore. Setting up your website like that just screams out to me that they are trying to make it as hard as possible for people to get out of the auto-renew.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it very .
. .
interesting , that on the McAfee website , you can turn ON the auto-renew yourself through the account management , but to get it turned OFF , you have to contact their customer service reps. What kind of BS is that ?
I 'm getting my parents away from McAfee , and I myself left McAfee a couple years back .
They used to be a good company to deal with .
Now , I just do n't trust them anymore .
Setting up your website like that just screams out to me that they are trying to make it as hard as possible for people to get out of the auto-renew .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it very.
. .
interesting, that on the McAfee website, you can turn ON the auto-renew yourself through the account management, but to get it turned OFF, you have to contact their customer service reps. What kind of BS is that?
I'm getting my parents away from McAfee, and I myself left McAfee a couple years back.
They used to be a good company to deal with.
Now, I just don't trust them anymore.
Setting up your website like that just screams out to me that they are trying to make it as hard as possible for people to get out of the auto-renew.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285877</id>
	<title>Re:Sting those bastards with a charge back</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1244630640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Charge-backs aren't always that easy to do. I had one that I thought was super-straightforward (merchant charged me twice in a row for the same thing, and wouldn't communicate with me about the problem), but the cc company wouldn't do the chargeback because my evidence didn't convince them.</p><p>
If you've got a recurring charge that you want to cancel, and you have a feeling that the company might be sleazy about it, the simplest thing to do is just cancel the cc number associated with the periodic billing, and have your cc company set you up with a new card and a new number. Same thing you'd do for any other kind of fraud, such as identity theft. If you have other recurring payments on that card, you do have to change them to the new number, but that's probably less than half an hour of work if you don't have too many of them -- that's a <i>lot</i> less than the amount of time you could spend banging your head against the wall trying to deal with the dishonest company that's the source of the problem.
</p><p>
Trying the charge-back can't hurt, of course. If the merchant is both small and sleazy, it might actually have a significant effect on them. If there are enough charge-backs, the cc company will shift them to a higher-risk category (which costs the merchant money).
</p><p>
The sleaziest example of abusive recurring charges I ever had to deal with was with the company that was providing <i>me</i> with a merchant credit card account. I canceled the account, but then a year later their charges mysteriously started showing up on my monthly cc bill again. Getting a new account number was my cc company's suggestion. Worked great.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Charge-backs are n't always that easy to do .
I had one that I thought was super-straightforward ( merchant charged me twice in a row for the same thing , and would n't communicate with me about the problem ) , but the cc company would n't do the chargeback because my evidence did n't convince them .
If you 've got a recurring charge that you want to cancel , and you have a feeling that the company might be sleazy about it , the simplest thing to do is just cancel the cc number associated with the periodic billing , and have your cc company set you up with a new card and a new number .
Same thing you 'd do for any other kind of fraud , such as identity theft .
If you have other recurring payments on that card , you do have to change them to the new number , but that 's probably less than half an hour of work if you do n't have too many of them -- that 's a lot less than the amount of time you could spend banging your head against the wall trying to deal with the dishonest company that 's the source of the problem .
Trying the charge-back ca n't hurt , of course .
If the merchant is both small and sleazy , it might actually have a significant effect on them .
If there are enough charge-backs , the cc company will shift them to a higher-risk category ( which costs the merchant money ) .
The sleaziest example of abusive recurring charges I ever had to deal with was with the company that was providing me with a merchant credit card account .
I canceled the account , but then a year later their charges mysteriously started showing up on my monthly cc bill again .
Getting a new account number was my cc company 's suggestion .
Worked great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Charge-backs aren't always that easy to do.
I had one that I thought was super-straightforward (merchant charged me twice in a row for the same thing, and wouldn't communicate with me about the problem), but the cc company wouldn't do the chargeback because my evidence didn't convince them.
If you've got a recurring charge that you want to cancel, and you have a feeling that the company might be sleazy about it, the simplest thing to do is just cancel the cc number associated with the periodic billing, and have your cc company set you up with a new card and a new number.
Same thing you'd do for any other kind of fraud, such as identity theft.
If you have other recurring payments on that card, you do have to change them to the new number, but that's probably less than half an hour of work if you don't have too many of them -- that's a lot less than the amount of time you could spend banging your head against the wall trying to deal with the dishonest company that's the source of the problem.
Trying the charge-back can't hurt, of course.
If the merchant is both small and sleazy, it might actually have a significant effect on them.
If there are enough charge-backs, the cc company will shift them to a higher-risk category (which costs the merchant money).
The sleaziest example of abusive recurring charges I ever had to deal with was with the company that was providing me with a merchant credit card account.
I canceled the account, but then a year later their charges mysteriously started showing up on my monthly cc bill again.
Getting a new account number was my cc company's suggestion.
Worked great.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28313433</id>
	<title>Re:ClamAV</title>
	<author>legirons</author>
	<datestamp>1244798220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If mail is going through your Linux box...</p></div><p>and how is that relevant to a Linux desktop machine?</p><p>By that logic, all Windows desktop PCs would have to be secured to the level of an SBS server</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If mail is going through your Linux box...and how is that relevant to a Linux desktop machine ? By that logic , all Windows desktop PCs would have to be secured to the level of an SBS server</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If mail is going through your Linux box...and how is that relevant to a Linux desktop machine?By that logic, all Windows desktop PCs would have to be secured to the level of an SBS server
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285323</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28289753</id>
	<title>Re:Humph...</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1244659200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The enterprise product from Symantec is great, from all accounts.  What about their cheap junk?  Resource hogging, ineffective crap, designed to make you feel good about giving away your money - and little else.</p><p>Install the consumer version of Symantec's internet safety suite, then go looking at bad sites.  Then come back and tell us how great Symantec is. I have watched Symantec products self destruct when they come face to face with some of the really bad infections.</p><p>Keep in mind that the same is true of most other anti-virus and malware products.  I'm not picking on Symantec in particular.</p><p>Now, if everyone could afford to set up an enterprise class network, complete with a server to host Symantec's security, then I might agree with you that being anti-Symantec is equivalent to being pro-Virus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The enterprise product from Symantec is great , from all accounts .
What about their cheap junk ?
Resource hogging , ineffective crap , designed to make you feel good about giving away your money - and little else.Install the consumer version of Symantec 's internet safety suite , then go looking at bad sites .
Then come back and tell us how great Symantec is .
I have watched Symantec products self destruct when they come face to face with some of the really bad infections.Keep in mind that the same is true of most other anti-virus and malware products .
I 'm not picking on Symantec in particular.Now , if everyone could afford to set up an enterprise class network , complete with a server to host Symantec 's security , then I might agree with you that being anti-Symantec is equivalent to being pro-Virus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The enterprise product from Symantec is great, from all accounts.
What about their cheap junk?
Resource hogging, ineffective crap, designed to make you feel good about giving away your money - and little else.Install the consumer version of Symantec's internet safety suite, then go looking at bad sites.
Then come back and tell us how great Symantec is.
I have watched Symantec products self destruct when they come face to face with some of the really bad infections.Keep in mind that the same is true of most other anti-virus and malware products.
I'm not picking on Symantec in particular.Now, if everyone could afford to set up an enterprise class network, complete with a server to host Symantec's security, then I might agree with you that being anti-Symantec is equivalent to being pro-Virus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284051</id>
	<title>Subscription services and auto-renewal are new?</title>
	<author>djh101010</author>
	<datestamp>1244666700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, I can't think of a single subscription service I have that \_doesn't\_ auto-renew.  In fact, I would be quite annoyed if I had to explicitly tell them "Yes, please, I want the Internet / satellite TV / newspaper tomorrow as well".

<br> <br>Is there anyone surprised that if you sign up for a subscription, that it keeps going?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I ca n't think of a single subscription service I have that \ _does n't \ _ auto-renew .
In fact , I would be quite annoyed if I had to explicitly tell them " Yes , please , I want the Internet / satellite TV / newspaper tomorrow as well " .
Is there anyone surprised that if you sign up for a subscription , that it keeps going ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I can't think of a single subscription service I have that \_doesn't\_ auto-renew.
In fact, I would be quite annoyed if I had to explicitly tell them "Yes, please, I want the Internet / satellite TV / newspaper tomorrow as well".
Is there anyone surprised that if you sign up for a subscription, that it keeps going?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28291427</id>
	<title>Re:Humph...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244725140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Anybody who is Anti-Symantec is objectively Pro-Virus.</p></div><p>try buying a PC with kubuntu preloaded and having the vendor tell you you're an irresponsible fool for not buying Symantec or Mcaffee with it...</p><p>sadly, some government departments institutionalise this ("all PCs must have anti-virus") which led to a spate of pointless "virus scanner" programs for gnu/linux with virus-signatures from the 1980's.</p></div><p>Linux (and Mac) users SHOULD use some form of anti-virus, because even if their workstation don't catch the virus/worm/whatever it can become a "healthy carrier" and by sharing files "infect" others.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody who is Anti-Symantec is objectively Pro-Virus.try buying a PC with kubuntu preloaded and having the vendor tell you you 're an irresponsible fool for not buying Symantec or Mcaffee with it...sadly , some government departments institutionalise this ( " all PCs must have anti-virus " ) which led to a spate of pointless " virus scanner " programs for gnu/linux with virus-signatures from the 1980 's.Linux ( and Mac ) users SHOULD use some form of anti-virus , because even if their workstation do n't catch the virus/worm/whatever it can become a " healthy carrier " and by sharing files " infect " others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody who is Anti-Symantec is objectively Pro-Virus.try buying a PC with kubuntu preloaded and having the vendor tell you you're an irresponsible fool for not buying Symantec or Mcaffee with it...sadly, some government departments institutionalise this ("all PCs must have anti-virus") which led to a spate of pointless "virus scanner" programs for gnu/linux with virus-signatures from the 1980's.Linux (and Mac) users SHOULD use some form of anti-virus, because even if their workstation don't catch the virus/worm/whatever it can become a "healthy carrier" and by sharing files "infect" others.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285083</id>
	<title>Re:Humph...</title>
	<author>cheftw</author>
	<datestamp>1244627460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this count as godwinning?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this count as godwinning ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this count as godwinning?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284375</id>
	<title>Re:Humph...</title>
	<author>End Program</author>
	<datestamp>1244624820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>President Bush, is that you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>President Bush , is that you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>President Bush, is that you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285241</id>
	<title>Re:Humph...</title>
	<author>Rasperin</author>
	<datestamp>1244628180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see the correlation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see the correlation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see the correlation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284565</id>
	<title>Re:Pathetic</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1244625540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the past, when an aristocrat or lord committed a crime against a lesser citizen, they were not held to account in the same way as an ordinary man would. Instead of summary justice, they needed only to pay a small fine or make some other slight amends. This included crimes such as aggravated assault and murder.</p><p>Our society is not so different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the past , when an aristocrat or lord committed a crime against a lesser citizen , they were not held to account in the same way as an ordinary man would .
Instead of summary justice , they needed only to pay a small fine or make some other slight amends .
This included crimes such as aggravated assault and murder.Our society is not so different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the past, when an aristocrat or lord committed a crime against a lesser citizen, they were not held to account in the same way as an ordinary man would.
Instead of summary justice, they needed only to pay a small fine or make some other slight amends.
This included crimes such as aggravated assault and murder.Our society is not so different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28283999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284293</id>
	<title>Good example similar to the EULA issues...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244624520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where users expect reasonable terms only to later find many that are quite unreasonable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where users expect reasonable terms only to later find many that are quite unreasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where users expect reasonable terms only to later find many that are quite unreasonable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28290243</id>
	<title>Re:Pathetic</title>
	<author>Samah</author>
	<datestamp>1244751120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and yet Jamster et. al get away with their scams because the "SMS STOP" etc. is in 4pt font at the bottom of your screen and is only visible for about 2 seconds.<br>
Some of the recent adverts I've seen they actually "say" it now. "3 year subscription service, $10 per week".  Yes I'm serious, they rip you off ~$1500 if you're stupid enough to fall for it (or even use those services), in which case you shouldn't even have a mobile phone.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and yet Jamster et .
al get away with their scams because the " SMS STOP " etc .
is in 4pt font at the bottom of your screen and is only visible for about 2 seconds .
Some of the recent adverts I 've seen they actually " say " it now .
" 3 year subscription service , $ 10 per week " .
Yes I 'm serious , they rip you off ~ $ 1500 if you 're stupid enough to fall for it ( or even use those services ) , in which case you should n't even have a mobile phone .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and yet Jamster et.
al get away with their scams because the "SMS STOP" etc.
is in 4pt font at the bottom of your screen and is only visible for about 2 seconds.
Some of the recent adverts I've seen they actually "say" it now.
"3 year subscription service, $10 per week".
Yes I'm serious, they rip you off ~$1500 if you're stupid enough to fall for it (or even use those services), in which case you shouldn't even have a mobile phone.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284229</id>
	<title>Only if it's made clear it's a subscription.</title>
	<author>maillemaker</author>
	<datestamp>1244667480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A newspaper is not a self-renewing subscription.  I'm sending a check for X dollars for X issues, after which they send me a bill and I pay for another X issues.</p><p>When people buy a piece of software, they expect they bought a piece of software.  If it has an auto-renewing maintenance subscription, this should be very clear, not buried deep in a EULA as the summary states.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A newspaper is not a self-renewing subscription .
I 'm sending a check for X dollars for X issues , after which they send me a bill and I pay for another X issues.When people buy a piece of software , they expect they bought a piece of software .
If it has an auto-renewing maintenance subscription , this should be very clear , not buried deep in a EULA as the summary states .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A newspaper is not a self-renewing subscription.
I'm sending a check for X dollars for X issues, after which they send me a bill and I pay for another X issues.When people buy a piece of software, they expect they bought a piece of software.
If it has an auto-renewing maintenance subscription, this should be very clear, not buried deep in a EULA as the summary states.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28286181</id>
	<title>Re:Humph...</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1244631780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Synamic products = Virus
Anti-Synantec = Anti-Virus</p></div><p>And of course, everyone knows the latest Synamic-brand line of trojans and worms  was secretly written by Symantec, who then tried to sell the confusingly named Anti-Synantec as a means of combating the very malware they wrote. It's all very confusing, but all you need to walk away from this with is:<br> Symantec = Evil incarnate</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Synamic products = Virus Anti-Synantec = Anti-VirusAnd of course , everyone knows the latest Synamic-brand line of trojans and worms was secretly written by Symantec , who then tried to sell the confusingly named Anti-Synantec as a means of combating the very malware they wrote .
It 's all very confusing , but all you need to walk away from this with is : Symantec = Evil incarnate</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Synamic products = Virus
Anti-Synantec = Anti-VirusAnd of course, everyone knows the latest Synamic-brand line of trojans and worms  was secretly written by Symantec, who then tried to sell the confusingly named Anti-Synantec as a means of combating the very malware they wrote.
It's all very confusing, but all you need to walk away from this with is: Symantec = Evil incarnate
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285323</id>
	<title>ClamAV</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1244628600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>sadly, some government departments institutionalise this ("all PCs must have anti-virus") which led to a spate of pointless "virus scanner" programs for gnu/linux with virus-signatures from the 1980's.</p></div><p>If mail is going through your Linux box, wouldn't you want to run ClamAV on the attachments?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>sadly , some government departments institutionalise this ( " all PCs must have anti-virus " ) which led to a spate of pointless " virus scanner " programs for gnu/linux with virus-signatures from the 1980 's.If mail is going through your Linux box , would n't you want to run ClamAV on the attachments ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sadly, some government departments institutionalise this ("all PCs must have anti-virus") which led to a spate of pointless "virus scanner" programs for gnu/linux with virus-signatures from the 1980's.If mail is going through your Linux box, wouldn't you want to run ClamAV on the attachments?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28287941</id>
	<title>Re:Subscription services and auto-renewal are new?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244643120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Despite these programs being represented as subscription services, most of their customers don't view them as subscriptions or services. They view them as regular physical software products that stop working after a year and they have to replace. To most people, they're as much services as a light bulb is a service.</p><p>Haven't you ever noticed that most people don't use their credit card to buy the subscriptions online? They still prefer to go out to the store and buy the anti-virus in a box every year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite these programs being represented as subscription services , most of their customers do n't view them as subscriptions or services .
They view them as regular physical software products that stop working after a year and they have to replace .
To most people , they 're as much services as a light bulb is a service.Have n't you ever noticed that most people do n't use their credit card to buy the subscriptions online ?
They still prefer to go out to the store and buy the anti-virus in a box every year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite these programs being represented as subscription services, most of their customers don't view them as subscriptions or services.
They view them as regular physical software products that stop working after a year and they have to replace.
To most people, they're as much services as a light bulb is a service.Haven't you ever noticed that most people don't use their credit card to buy the subscriptions online?
They still prefer to go out to the store and buy the anti-virus in a box every year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285571</id>
	<title>Re:Do I get some of that fine money?</title>
	<author>WiiVault</author>
	<datestamp>1244629620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which AV company was it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which AV company was it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which AV company was it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285765</id>
	<title>Re:Do I get some of that fine money?</title>
	<author>Piranhaa</author>
	<datestamp>1244630280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GoDaddy did something to me a few years back.</p><p>I ordered a domain for my friend with the +$30 Google advertising crap. I don't remember whether I chose if it should auto renew, or whether it's enabled by default.</p><p>So anyways, half way into it, I cancel the domain auto renewal. You'd think that everything would be fine and dandy, right? WRONG. After the domain expired, I noticed a weird charge on my credit card. I called GoDaddy up and the rep said "There is NO way to refund this charge." She didn't realize how stupid it was to have a website promotion service on a domain name that's not even registered anymore!!!</p><p>Anyways, I didn't spend too much time on the phone (that's not my job). I immediately called up VISA, told them what happened (which you're normally supposed to wait 30 days before, but I got away with it in a week), and said I wouldn't need to pay that amount on my card and that there would be no accumulating interest. A few weeks later I noticed a credit on my card for the amount they originally deducted.</p><p>For reasons like that, I will continue to use them. They succeeded in my Broadvoice refund as well. I got a free trial, but if you cancel in the "Free" trial period they charge you for the cost of the period. If you cancel AFTER the period ends, they charge you for the next month. There's no way to tell them to cancel your account on a certain day. See anything funny here? Anyways, VISA fixed that up for me too.</p><p>Long live the Credit Card companies!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GoDaddy did something to me a few years back.I ordered a domain for my friend with the + $ 30 Google advertising crap .
I do n't remember whether I chose if it should auto renew , or whether it 's enabled by default.So anyways , half way into it , I cancel the domain auto renewal .
You 'd think that everything would be fine and dandy , right ?
WRONG. After the domain expired , I noticed a weird charge on my credit card .
I called GoDaddy up and the rep said " There is NO way to refund this charge .
" She did n't realize how stupid it was to have a website promotion service on a domain name that 's not even registered anymore ! !
! Anyways , I did n't spend too much time on the phone ( that 's not my job ) .
I immediately called up VISA , told them what happened ( which you 're normally supposed to wait 30 days before , but I got away with it in a week ) , and said I would n't need to pay that amount on my card and that there would be no accumulating interest .
A few weeks later I noticed a credit on my card for the amount they originally deducted.For reasons like that , I will continue to use them .
They succeeded in my Broadvoice refund as well .
I got a free trial , but if you cancel in the " Free " trial period they charge you for the cost of the period .
If you cancel AFTER the period ends , they charge you for the next month .
There 's no way to tell them to cancel your account on a certain day .
See anything funny here ?
Anyways , VISA fixed that up for me too.Long live the Credit Card companies !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GoDaddy did something to me a few years back.I ordered a domain for my friend with the +$30 Google advertising crap.
I don't remember whether I chose if it should auto renew, or whether it's enabled by default.So anyways, half way into it, I cancel the domain auto renewal.
You'd think that everything would be fine and dandy, right?
WRONG. After the domain expired, I noticed a weird charge on my credit card.
I called GoDaddy up and the rep said "There is NO way to refund this charge.
" She didn't realize how stupid it was to have a website promotion service on a domain name that's not even registered anymore!!
!Anyways, I didn't spend too much time on the phone (that's not my job).
I immediately called up VISA, told them what happened (which you're normally supposed to wait 30 days before, but I got away with it in a week), and said I wouldn't need to pay that amount on my card and that there would be no accumulating interest.
A few weeks later I noticed a credit on my card for the amount they originally deducted.For reasons like that, I will continue to use them.
They succeeded in my Broadvoice refund as well.
I got a free trial, but if you cancel in the "Free" trial period they charge you for the cost of the period.
If you cancel AFTER the period ends, they charge you for the next month.
There's no way to tell them to cancel your account on a certain day.
See anything funny here?
Anyways, VISA fixed that up for me too.Long live the Credit Card companies!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284183</id>
	<title>Pay the governement?</title>
	<author>flandar</author>
	<datestamp>1244667240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is the government going to do with this money?

It seems to me they should pay it back to the consumers who were ripped off.  But we all know they are just going to put it into the general fund and spend it on some pet project or political pay back to one of their cronies.

Thanks government, you've helped to keep us safer by taking money from one bad guy and giving it to another.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is the government going to do with this money ?
It seems to me they should pay it back to the consumers who were ripped off .
But we all know they are just going to put it into the general fund and spend it on some pet project or political pay back to one of their cronies .
Thanks government , you 've helped to keep us safer by taking money from one bad guy and giving it to another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is the government going to do with this money?
It seems to me they should pay it back to the consumers who were ripped off.
But we all know they are just going to put it into the general fund and spend it on some pet project or political pay back to one of their cronies.
Thanks government, you've helped to keep us safer by taking money from one bad guy and giving it to another.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28290033</id>
	<title>Re:Pathetic - with implucations?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244662200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>microsoft xbox live service did the same poo poo to me.  anyone else? how many people make a class action suit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>microsoft xbox live service did the same poo poo to me .
anyone else ?
how many people make a class action suit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>microsoft xbox live service did the same poo poo to me.
anyone else?
how many people make a class action suit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284029</id>
	<title>Humph...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244666640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anybody who is Anti-Symantec is objectively Pro-Virus.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody who is Anti-Symantec is objectively Pro-Virus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody who is Anti-Symantec is objectively Pro-Virus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28304809</id>
	<title>Re:Pay the governement?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244747760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It seems to me they should pay it back to the consumers who were ripped off.</i> </p><p>Fat chance. It's like those class action ripoffs where the lawyers get cash and the plaintiffs get a coupon for half price off for more of the same shit from the same ripoff artist. IF AND ONLY IF you can prove you made a purchase by digging out the receipt from the purchase eight years ago. (These suits take a long time to start and longer to end.)</p><p>It's much like getting raped, then having to marry the rapist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me they should pay it back to the consumers who were ripped off .
Fat chance .
It 's like those class action ripoffs where the lawyers get cash and the plaintiffs get a coupon for half price off for more of the same shit from the same ripoff artist .
IF AND ONLY IF you can prove you made a purchase by digging out the receipt from the purchase eight years ago .
( These suits take a long time to start and longer to end .
) It 's much like getting raped , then having to marry the rapist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me they should pay it back to the consumers who were ripped off.
Fat chance.
It's like those class action ripoffs where the lawyers get cash and the plaintiffs get a coupon for half price off for more of the same shit from the same ripoff artist.
IF AND ONLY IF you can prove you made a purchase by digging out the receipt from the purchase eight years ago.
(These suits take a long time to start and longer to end.
)It's much like getting raped, then having to marry the rapist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28286067</id>
	<title>Re:Humph...</title>
	<author>EchaniDrgn</author>
	<datestamp>1244631300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know who else was Anti-Symantec?  He even made them wear pieces of flair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know who else was Anti-Symantec ?
He even made them wear pieces of flair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know who else was Anti-Symantec?
He even made them wear pieces of flair.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28286479</id>
	<title>Re:Fine</title>
	<author>taucross</author>
	<datestamp>1244633460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Defraud users of hard-earned cash<br>
2. Pay kickback in form of "fine" to government<br>
3. ???<br>
4. Profit</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Defraud users of hard-earned cash 2 .
Pay kickback in form of " fine " to government 3 .
? ? ? 4 .
Profit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Defraud users of hard-earned cash
2.
Pay kickback in form of "fine" to government
3.
???
4.
Profit</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284057</id>
	<title>Sting those bastards with a charge back</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244666760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not immediately clear if the companies will be governed by the same rules in the UK.</p></div><p>The charge-back form from your bank, will most likely have this scenario as one of the generic reasons for issuing a charge back.<br>I caught sneaky virgin media dipping in for an extra month (before they turned super evil), but the money was back in my account within a few weeks.</p><p>They'll get a charge back fee for sure; though the companies size probably makes them immune from having their card processing facility revoked, for excessive charge backs. Shame.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not immediately clear if the companies will be governed by the same rules in the UK.The charge-back form from your bank , will most likely have this scenario as one of the generic reasons for issuing a charge back.I caught sneaky virgin media dipping in for an extra month ( before they turned super evil ) , but the money was back in my account within a few weeks.They 'll get a charge back fee for sure ; though the companies size probably makes them immune from having their card processing facility revoked , for excessive charge backs .
Shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not immediately clear if the companies will be governed by the same rules in the UK.The charge-back form from your bank, will most likely have this scenario as one of the generic reasons for issuing a charge back.I caught sneaky virgin media dipping in for an extra month (before they turned super evil), but the money was back in my account within a few weeks.They'll get a charge back fee for sure; though the companies size probably makes them immune from having their card processing facility revoked, for excessive charge backs.
Shame.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285737</id>
	<title>Re:Do I get some of that fine money?</title>
	<author>biking42</author>
	<datestamp>1244630220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was a Norton fan-boi from Peter's humble beginnings in '85 or '86 up until my last purchase of Symantec AV in 2006.  It was then the bloatware pushed me over the edge when it made my spiffy new AMD 64-X2 crawl like a turtle on downers.  After some comparative research jumped ship to Avast!.  What I purchased at the time was the 2006 upgrade.  About a year and 1month later I happened to look at my credit card statement and saw a charge from Symantec.  And it wasn't their old $10/year to renew the virus definition subscription but was something like $25.

I was furious!  It's impossible to call them anymore but I filled out an online support ticket and to be honest, used wording that I myself would have just deleted with an F-U buddy!  But about 2 days later I got a nice email that was quite apologetic and referred to the automatic renewal as a "convenience" but gave no indication how I was supposed to have "canceled" prior to the renewal.  But they said they'd happily cancel my new subscription and refund my money.  It wasn't but a few days later I saw the charges reversed in full on my credit card.  Obviously had I not caught it they'd have been happy to rebill me year after year but I was happy with how quickly the DID respond to my less than tactful complaint.

However contrast that to my GoDaddy hosting &amp; domain name registration.  Though they have my credit card on file and though I've set it up for automatic renewal (for both hosting and domain name registration), 3 months prior to the renewal I start getting reminder emails that it's time to renew and if I've set it up for automatic renewal then I don't need to do anything, and the email was just to serve as a reminder and notification to expect the charge on my credit card.  Yes they're pushing me to renew sooner than needed - and continued to do so up until the automatic renewal - but offered discounts on additional services or things like an additional month.  But still I knew full and well before the renewal that it was going to happen - and was plenty of time in advance that I would have had time to move the hosting or domain name someplace else had I chosen to do so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was a Norton fan-boi from Peter 's humble beginnings in '85 or '86 up until my last purchase of Symantec AV in 2006 .
It was then the bloatware pushed me over the edge when it made my spiffy new AMD 64-X2 crawl like a turtle on downers .
After some comparative research jumped ship to Avast ! .
What I purchased at the time was the 2006 upgrade .
About a year and 1month later I happened to look at my credit card statement and saw a charge from Symantec .
And it was n't their old $ 10/year to renew the virus definition subscription but was something like $ 25 .
I was furious !
It 's impossible to call them anymore but I filled out an online support ticket and to be honest , used wording that I myself would have just deleted with an F-U buddy !
But about 2 days later I got a nice email that was quite apologetic and referred to the automatic renewal as a " convenience " but gave no indication how I was supposed to have " canceled " prior to the renewal .
But they said they 'd happily cancel my new subscription and refund my money .
It was n't but a few days later I saw the charges reversed in full on my credit card .
Obviously had I not caught it they 'd have been happy to rebill me year after year but I was happy with how quickly the DID respond to my less than tactful complaint .
However contrast that to my GoDaddy hosting &amp; domain name registration .
Though they have my credit card on file and though I 've set it up for automatic renewal ( for both hosting and domain name registration ) , 3 months prior to the renewal I start getting reminder emails that it 's time to renew and if I 've set it up for automatic renewal then I do n't need to do anything , and the email was just to serve as a reminder and notification to expect the charge on my credit card .
Yes they 're pushing me to renew sooner than needed - and continued to do so up until the automatic renewal - but offered discounts on additional services or things like an additional month .
But still I knew full and well before the renewal that it was going to happen - and was plenty of time in advance that I would have had time to move the hosting or domain name someplace else had I chosen to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was a Norton fan-boi from Peter's humble beginnings in '85 or '86 up until my last purchase of Symantec AV in 2006.
It was then the bloatware pushed me over the edge when it made my spiffy new AMD 64-X2 crawl like a turtle on downers.
After some comparative research jumped ship to Avast!.
What I purchased at the time was the 2006 upgrade.
About a year and 1month later I happened to look at my credit card statement and saw a charge from Symantec.
And it wasn't their old $10/year to renew the virus definition subscription but was something like $25.
I was furious!
It's impossible to call them anymore but I filled out an online support ticket and to be honest, used wording that I myself would have just deleted with an F-U buddy!
But about 2 days later I got a nice email that was quite apologetic and referred to the automatic renewal as a "convenience" but gave no indication how I was supposed to have "canceled" prior to the renewal.
But they said they'd happily cancel my new subscription and refund my money.
It wasn't but a few days later I saw the charges reversed in full on my credit card.
Obviously had I not caught it they'd have been happy to rebill me year after year but I was happy with how quickly the DID respond to my less than tactful complaint.
However contrast that to my GoDaddy hosting &amp; domain name registration.
Though they have my credit card on file and though I've set it up for automatic renewal (for both hosting and domain name registration), 3 months prior to the renewal I start getting reminder emails that it's time to renew and if I've set it up for automatic renewal then I don't need to do anything, and the email was just to serve as a reminder and notification to expect the charge on my credit card.
Yes they're pushing me to renew sooner than needed - and continued to do so up until the automatic renewal - but offered discounts on additional services or things like an additional month.
But still I knew full and well before the renewal that it was going to happen - and was plenty of time in advance that I would have had time to move the hosting or domain name someplace else had I chosen to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285615</id>
	<title>Re:Pathetic</title>
	<author>oakgrove</author>
	<datestamp>1244629800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>However, this is good news in that despite the EULA containing info about the auto-renewal, that wasn't enough to justify the practise.  Further proof that, in the eyes of the law, the EULA is anything but iron-clad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , this is good news in that despite the EULA containing info about the auto-renewal , that was n't enough to justify the practise .
Further proof that , in the eyes of the law , the EULA is anything but iron-clad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, this is good news in that despite the EULA containing info about the auto-renewal, that wasn't enough to justify the practise.
Further proof that, in the eyes of the law, the EULA is anything but iron-clad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28283999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28287847</id>
	<title>Re:Humph...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244642520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's funny, we have a 100 node Linux modeling cluster at work, essentially think renderfarm.. all Dell 1U servers, running a mix of RHEL3/4/5.. Here last year some wag in the suit dept decided we had to have anti-virus on them, the piece of crap known as Mcafee LinuxShield, which doesn't even allow on-access scanning on the RHEL3 systems, since Mcafee claims the kernel RHEL3 has is not supported, and if you decide to build the kernel module per their conflicting instructions, it bitches about a whole flock of "missing" libs.. We've been going round-and-round with them trying to get this to work for several months...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's funny , we have a 100 node Linux modeling cluster at work , essentially think renderfarm.. all Dell 1U servers , running a mix of RHEL3/4/5.. Here last year some wag in the suit dept decided we had to have anti-virus on them , the piece of crap known as Mcafee LinuxShield , which does n't even allow on-access scanning on the RHEL3 systems , since Mcafee claims the kernel RHEL3 has is not supported , and if you decide to build the kernel module per their conflicting instructions , it bitches about a whole flock of " missing " libs.. We 've been going round-and-round with them trying to get this to work for several months.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's funny, we have a 100 node Linux modeling cluster at work, essentially think renderfarm.. all Dell 1U servers, running a mix of RHEL3/4/5.. Here last year some wag in the suit dept decided we had to have anti-virus on them, the piece of crap known as Mcafee LinuxShield, which doesn't even allow on-access scanning on the RHEL3 systems, since Mcafee claims the kernel RHEL3 has is not supported, and if you decide to build the kernel module per their conflicting instructions, it bitches about a whole flock of "missing" libs.. We've been going round-and-round with them trying to get this to work for several months...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28283999</id>
	<title>Pathetic</title>
	<author>akanouras</author>
	<datestamp>1244666580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>$375,000? That's petty change compared to how much they made out of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 375,000 ?
That 's petty change compared to how much they made out of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$375,000?
That's petty change compared to how much they made out of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284201</id>
	<title>Re:Subscription services and auto-renewal are new?</title>
	<author>atfrase</author>
	<datestamp>1244667300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You know, I can't think of a single subscription service I have that \_doesn't\_ auto-renew.  In fact, I would be quite annoyed if I had to explicitly tell them "Yes, please, I want the Internet / satellite TV / newspaper tomorrow as well".<br> <br>Is there anyone surprised that if you sign up for a subscription, that it keeps going?</p></div><p>I think part of the problem is that a lot of people still don't think of computer security in general, and virus/malware/etc protection in particular, as an ongoing necessity.  People's computers slow down, crash, display popups or whatever, they go out and buy some product to "fix it", and think of it as a one-time deal.  They don't think of it as a "subscription" and don't expect to have to renew it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I ca n't think of a single subscription service I have that \ _does n't \ _ auto-renew .
In fact , I would be quite annoyed if I had to explicitly tell them " Yes , please , I want the Internet / satellite TV / newspaper tomorrow as well " .
Is there anyone surprised that if you sign up for a subscription , that it keeps going ? I think part of the problem is that a lot of people still do n't think of computer security in general , and virus/malware/etc protection in particular , as an ongoing necessity .
People 's computers slow down , crash , display popups or whatever , they go out and buy some product to " fix it " , and think of it as a one-time deal .
They do n't think of it as a " subscription " and do n't expect to have to renew it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I can't think of a single subscription service I have that \_doesn't\_ auto-renew.
In fact, I would be quite annoyed if I had to explicitly tell them "Yes, please, I want the Internet / satellite TV / newspaper tomorrow as well".
Is there anyone surprised that if you sign up for a subscription, that it keeps going?I think part of the problem is that a lot of people still don't think of computer security in general, and virus/malware/etc protection in particular, as an ongoing necessity.
People's computers slow down, crash, display popups or whatever, they go out and buy some product to "fix it", and think of it as a one-time deal.
They don't think of it as a "subscription" and don't expect to have to renew it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284159</id>
	<title>Where is the "Freedom of Contract" crew?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244667120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ordinarily, I would have expected a small army of people saying "It was in the contract.  If people are too dumb to read the whole thing before they agree to it, they deserve whatever they get."</p><p>They seem to be pretty thin on the ground, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ordinarily , I would have expected a small army of people saying " It was in the contract .
If people are too dumb to read the whole thing before they agree to it , they deserve whatever they get .
" They seem to be pretty thin on the ground , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ordinarily, I would have expected a small army of people saying "It was in the contract.
If people are too dumb to read the whole thing before they agree to it, they deserve whatever they get.
"They seem to be pretty thin on the ground, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284103</id>
	<title>Rebills?</title>
	<author>basementman</author>
	<datestamp>1244666880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if this means they will also begin cracking down on people promoting rebills (crap online products that start with an initial buy in price of $2 but then charge you another $60 after a month). Which they try to claim they're legal because they bury it 4 pages in on the Terms and Conditions page which is link to in fine print on the bottom of the sales page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if this means they will also begin cracking down on people promoting rebills ( crap online products that start with an initial buy in price of $ 2 but then charge you another $ 60 after a month ) .
Which they try to claim they 're legal because they bury it 4 pages in on the Terms and Conditions page which is link to in fine print on the bottom of the sales page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if this means they will also begin cracking down on people promoting rebills (crap online products that start with an initial buy in price of $2 but then charge you another $60 after a month).
Which they try to claim they're legal because they bury it 4 pages in on the Terms and Conditions page which is link to in fine print on the bottom of the sales page.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284299</id>
	<title>Re:Humph...</title>
	<author>legirons</author>
	<datestamp>1244624520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anybody who is Anti-Symantec is objectively Pro-Virus.</p></div><p>try buying a PC with kubuntu preloaded and having the vendor tell you you're an irresponsible fool for not buying Symantec or Mcaffee with it...</p><p>sadly, some government departments institutionalise this ("all PCs must have anti-virus") which led to a spate of pointless "virus scanner" programs for gnu/linux with virus-signatures from the 1980's.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anybody who is Anti-Symantec is objectively Pro-Virus.try buying a PC with kubuntu preloaded and having the vendor tell you you 're an irresponsible fool for not buying Symantec or Mcaffee with it...sadly , some government departments institutionalise this ( " all PCs must have anti-virus " ) which led to a spate of pointless " virus scanner " programs for gnu/linux with virus-signatures from the 1980 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anybody who is Anti-Symantec is objectively Pro-Virus.try buying a PC with kubuntu preloaded and having the vendor tell you you're an irresponsible fool for not buying Symantec or Mcaffee with it...sadly, some government departments institutionalise this ("all PCs must have anti-virus") which led to a spate of pointless "virus scanner" programs for gnu/linux with virus-signatures from the 1980's.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284117</id>
	<title>Could also be filed under</title>
	<author>Presto Vivace</author>
	<datestamp>1244666940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>dept. of defective business models. Also the customer relations from hell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>dept .
of defective business models .
Also the customer relations from hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dept.
of defective business models.
Also the customer relations from hell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285115</id>
	<title>Re:Fine</title>
	<author>JonahsDad</author>
	<datestamp>1244627580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a previous McAfee user (now AVG), this happened to me this year. As my credit card was expiring, I figured I wouldn't bother to cancel. Unfortunately, I had the dates wrong and the charge happened first. Fortunately, a quick email to McAfee and my subscription was cancelled and the charge was reversed.<br>
I'm not saying what they were doing was right. I am saying that in my case, I had plenty of emails from them warning me ahead of time, plus a very simple procedure to cancel and get a refund.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a previous McAfee user ( now AVG ) , this happened to me this year .
As my credit card was expiring , I figured I would n't bother to cancel .
Unfortunately , I had the dates wrong and the charge happened first .
Fortunately , a quick email to McAfee and my subscription was cancelled and the charge was reversed .
I 'm not saying what they were doing was right .
I am saying that in my case , I had plenty of emails from them warning me ahead of time , plus a very simple procedure to cancel and get a refund .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a previous McAfee user (now AVG), this happened to me this year.
As my credit card was expiring, I figured I wouldn't bother to cancel.
Unfortunately, I had the dates wrong and the charge happened first.
Fortunately, a quick email to McAfee and my subscription was cancelled and the charge was reversed.
I'm not saying what they were doing was right.
I am saying that in my case, I had plenty of emails from them warning me ahead of time, plus a very simple procedure to cancel and get a refund.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284045</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28286067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28290243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28283999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28287135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28283999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28290033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28283999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28313433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28286479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28287869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28286063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284741
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28287941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285737
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28289753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28287847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28304809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28291427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28291089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28283999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28286181
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_10_1923240_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28283999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1923240.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285737
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1923240.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28283999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28287135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285615
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28290033
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28290243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28291089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284565
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1923240.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285877
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1923240.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284293
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1923240.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284133
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28286181
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28287869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28286067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284299
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285323
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28313433
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28287847
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28291427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28289753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284453
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1923240.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28304809
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1923240.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284357
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1923240.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28287941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28286063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284741
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_10_1923240.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28284045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28286479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_10_1923240.28285115
</commentlist>
</conversation>
