<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_19_0152259</id>
	<title>Newspaper Crowdsources 700,000-Page Investigation of MP Expenses</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1245401400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>projector writes with an interesting project from the UK: <i>"The Guardian are <a href="http://mps-expenses.guardian.co.uk/">crowd-sourcing the investigation of 700,000 pages of UK MPs' expenses data</a>. Readers are being invited to categorize each document, transcribe the handwritten expenses details into an online form and alert the newspaper if any claims merit further investigation. 'Some pages will be covering letters, or claim forms for office stationery. But somewhere in here is the receipt for a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/20/mps-expenses-peter-viggers-conservatives">duck island</a>. And who knows what else may turn up. If you find something which you think needs further attention, simply hit the button marked "investigate this!" and we'll take a closer look.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>projector writes with an interesting project from the UK : " The Guardian are crowd-sourcing the investigation of 700,000 pages of UK MPs ' expenses data .
Readers are being invited to categorize each document , transcribe the handwritten expenses details into an online form and alert the newspaper if any claims merit further investigation .
'Some pages will be covering letters , or claim forms for office stationery .
But somewhere in here is the receipt for a duck island .
And who knows what else may turn up .
If you find something which you think needs further attention , simply hit the button marked " investigate this !
" and we 'll take a closer look .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>projector writes with an interesting project from the UK: "The Guardian are crowd-sourcing the investigation of 700,000 pages of UK MPs' expenses data.
Readers are being invited to categorize each document, transcribe the handwritten expenses details into an online form and alert the newspaper if any claims merit further investigation.
'Some pages will be covering letters, or claim forms for office stationery.
But somewhere in here is the receipt for a duck island.
And who knows what else may turn up.
If you find something which you think needs further attention, simply hit the button marked "investigate this!
" and we'll take a closer look.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390089</id>
	<title>sounds legit</title>
	<author>danlip</author>
	<datestamp>1245426780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Viggers also claimed for 28 tonnes of manure</p></div></blockquote><p>He's a politician, that sounds like a genuine work expense.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Viggers also claimed for 28 tonnes of manureHe 's a politician , that sounds like a genuine work expense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Viggers also claimed for 28 tonnes of manureHe's a politician, that sounds like a genuine work expense.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387025</id>
	<title>Waste of time?</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1245407340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone who has seen the expenses will know that the important stuff is all blanked out.</p><p>There are pages that are entirely black in there.</p><p>There are pages that say things like:</p><p>"Dear xx, here is your invoice of &pound;2,500 for the following work:"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and then everything below it blanked out.</p><p>The BBC had a copy of Gordon Brown's uncensored expenses document and compared it to the official version. The uncensored version said "&pound;99.00 Sky TV", the censored version just said "&pound;99.00".</p><p>The whole thing is a farce, we need to get the uncensored version - there was suggestion yesterday the Telegraph who obtained the leaked uncensored versions would release them to the public today but I've heard nothing more since.</p><p>There are some gems in the official version, under MP Ian Cawsey's expenses I noticed he'd sponsored a local football team &pound;300, and then charged the tax payer for that sponsorship via the expenses system, but I feel if we start this now we'll only need to start right over when we do finally get hold of the uncensored version.</p><p>I suppose there's an argument finding breaches in the official release will allow us to apply more pressure to get the uncensored version though maybe? I'd have thought people's time would be better spent actually pressuring for the release though of the uncensored versions overall and then do something like this.</p><p>Still, good work to the Guardian for working with what we have at least, you can't fault them for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who has seen the expenses will know that the important stuff is all blanked out.There are pages that are entirely black in there.There are pages that say things like : " Dear xx , here is your invoice of   2,500 for the following work : " ...and then everything below it blanked out.The BBC had a copy of Gordon Brown 's uncensored expenses document and compared it to the official version .
The uncensored version said "   99.00 Sky TV " , the censored version just said "   99.00 " .The whole thing is a farce , we need to get the uncensored version - there was suggestion yesterday the Telegraph who obtained the leaked uncensored versions would release them to the public today but I 've heard nothing more since.There are some gems in the official version , under MP Ian Cawsey 's expenses I noticed he 'd sponsored a local football team   300 , and then charged the tax payer for that sponsorship via the expenses system , but I feel if we start this now we 'll only need to start right over when we do finally get hold of the uncensored version.I suppose there 's an argument finding breaches in the official release will allow us to apply more pressure to get the uncensored version though maybe ?
I 'd have thought people 's time would be better spent actually pressuring for the release though of the uncensored versions overall and then do something like this.Still , good work to the Guardian for working with what we have at least , you ca n't fault them for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who has seen the expenses will know that the important stuff is all blanked out.There are pages that are entirely black in there.There are pages that say things like:"Dear xx, here is your invoice of £2,500 for the following work:" ...and then everything below it blanked out.The BBC had a copy of Gordon Brown's uncensored expenses document and compared it to the official version.
The uncensored version said "£99.00 Sky TV", the censored version just said "£99.00".The whole thing is a farce, we need to get the uncensored version - there was suggestion yesterday the Telegraph who obtained the leaked uncensored versions would release them to the public today but I've heard nothing more since.There are some gems in the official version, under MP Ian Cawsey's expenses I noticed he'd sponsored a local football team £300, and then charged the tax payer for that sponsorship via the expenses system, but I feel if we start this now we'll only need to start right over when we do finally get hold of the uncensored version.I suppose there's an argument finding breaches in the official release will allow us to apply more pressure to get the uncensored version though maybe?
I'd have thought people's time would be better spent actually pressuring for the release though of the uncensored versions overall and then do something like this.Still, good work to the Guardian for working with what we have at least, you can't fault them for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386961</id>
	<title>Hacker target?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245406680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No doubt pro-Bush renegade hackers will already be attacking the site, keen to repeat their Clark County anti-Guardian campaign by deleting any data that casts suspicion on right-wing MPs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No doubt pro-Bush renegade hackers will already be attacking the site , keen to repeat their Clark County anti-Guardian campaign by deleting any data that casts suspicion on right-wing MPs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No doubt pro-Bush renegade hackers will already be attacking the site, keen to repeat their Clark County anti-Guardian campaign by deleting any data that casts suspicion on right-wing MPs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387001</id>
	<title>But will it work?</title>
	<author>SFA\_AOK</author>
	<datestamp>1245407160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I commend the idea and the effort. But there are 700,000 documents, each with how many pages each? It's an interesting idea but will the crowd's enthusiasm hold up?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I commend the idea and the effort .
But there are 700,000 documents , each with how many pages each ?
It 's an interesting idea but will the crowd 's enthusiasm hold up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I commend the idea and the effort.
But there are 700,000 documents, each with how many pages each?
It's an interesting idea but will the crowd's enthusiasm hold up?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28392787</id>
	<title>Re:I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>bitt3n</author>
	<datestamp>1245438480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But I'm pretty sure that almost ANYONE in their shoes would have done the same...it's called the human condition.  You are given the power to abuse something and you think nobody will notice....so you do.</p></div><p>thank god for the occasional subhuman who, given power, foolishly uses it in the public interest, or abdicates it for the public good (a temptation to which god himself appears curiously unsusceptible.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I 'm pretty sure that almost ANYONE in their shoes would have done the same...it 's called the human condition .
You are given the power to abuse something and you think nobody will notice....so you do.thank god for the occasional subhuman who , given power , foolishly uses it in the public interest , or abdicates it for the public good ( a temptation to which god himself appears curiously unsusceptible .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I'm pretty sure that almost ANYONE in their shoes would have done the same...it's called the human condition.
You are given the power to abuse something and you think nobody will notice....so you do.thank god for the occasional subhuman who, given power, foolishly uses it in the public interest, or abdicates it for the public good (a temptation to which god himself appears curiously unsusceptible.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28388135</id>
	<title>Orthogonal awesomeness</title>
	<author>Balinares</author>
	<datestamp>1245418260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently this site <a href="http://simonwillison.net/2009/Jun/18/investigate/" title="simonwillison.net">runs Django</a> [simonwillison.net], and was built in but a few days. Great show of open source power there! Worth a mention IMHO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently this site runs Django [ simonwillison.net ] , and was built in but a few days .
Great show of open source power there !
Worth a mention IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently this site runs Django [simonwillison.net], and was built in but a few days.
Great show of open source power there!
Worth a mention IMHO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387631</id>
	<title>Re:I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>pacinpm</author>
	<datestamp>1245414420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Believe it or not, the majority of people entrusted with power over the lives of others live up to the minimal expectation that this trust will not be broken. The word that describes this is integrity, and no amount of fallacious reasoning will erase the fact that you lack it.</p></div><p>I guess you have never heard of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford\_prison\_experiment" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford\_prison\_experiment</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Believe it or not , the majority of people entrusted with power over the lives of others live up to the minimal expectation that this trust will not be broken .
The word that describes this is integrity , and no amount of fallacious reasoning will erase the fact that you lack it.I guess you have never heard of http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford \ _prison \ _experiment [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Believe it or not, the majority of people entrusted with power over the lives of others live up to the minimal expectation that this trust will not be broken.
The word that describes this is integrity, and no amount of fallacious reasoning will erase the fact that you lack it.I guess you have never heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford\_prison\_experiment [wikipedia.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387727</id>
	<title>Re:Why TF doesn't it happen in US?</title>
	<author>Wizard Drongo</author>
	<datestamp>1245415380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very true..<br>To add to this, a scottish perspective (and maybe a little backdrop since the main papers here are basically either independent politically, and stick to to whomever they feel deserves it, SNP-loyal, or Labour-loyal; all the papers are much more political in Scotland) would be to add in the Scottish dailies; obviously i'm not going to include the "scottish" Sun etc. since they are exactly the same as the UK version, just with a story about how all Scots are thieving lying benefit-scheating heroin addicts every 2 pages...</p><p>The Record: Biggest scottish daily.  Owned by trinity mirror, much like the Mirror itself, really.  Heavily, extremely pro-Labour, anti-SNP, anti-Scotland and anti-anything-Labour-tell-them-to-be.  On the day of the 2007 Scottish elections (which the SNP won), their editorial predicted a plague on all your houses if you vote SNP etc.  Going out of business fairly soon if they continue to lose readers...</p><p>The Scotsman: broadsheet, mostly independent; seems to moderately support the SNP now, as well as other liberal ideals.  Quite a nice paper, if I bought a daily it'd probably be this...</p><p>The Herald: broadsheet; biggest selling "proper" paper in Scotland now, having overtaken the Scotsman.  Politically independent (mostly), and will occasionally criticise Labour or SNP alike.  May well be also folding, many many job losses in recent years.</p><p>There are others but I can't be bothered and they're mostly all small-fry anyway....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very true..To add to this , a scottish perspective ( and maybe a little backdrop since the main papers here are basically either independent politically , and stick to to whomever they feel deserves it , SNP-loyal , or Labour-loyal ; all the papers are much more political in Scotland ) would be to add in the Scottish dailies ; obviously i 'm not going to include the " scottish " Sun etc .
since they are exactly the same as the UK version , just with a story about how all Scots are thieving lying benefit-scheating heroin addicts every 2 pages...The Record : Biggest scottish daily .
Owned by trinity mirror , much like the Mirror itself , really .
Heavily , extremely pro-Labour , anti-SNP , anti-Scotland and anti-anything-Labour-tell-them-to-be .
On the day of the 2007 Scottish elections ( which the SNP won ) , their editorial predicted a plague on all your houses if you vote SNP etc .
Going out of business fairly soon if they continue to lose readers...The Scotsman : broadsheet , mostly independent ; seems to moderately support the SNP now , as well as other liberal ideals .
Quite a nice paper , if I bought a daily it 'd probably be this...The Herald : broadsheet ; biggest selling " proper " paper in Scotland now , having overtaken the Scotsman .
Politically independent ( mostly ) , and will occasionally criticise Labour or SNP alike .
May well be also folding , many many job losses in recent years.There are others but I ca n't be bothered and they 're mostly all small-fry anyway... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very true..To add to this, a scottish perspective (and maybe a little backdrop since the main papers here are basically either independent politically, and stick to to whomever they feel deserves it, SNP-loyal, or Labour-loyal; all the papers are much more political in Scotland) would be to add in the Scottish dailies; obviously i'm not going to include the "scottish" Sun etc.
since they are exactly the same as the UK version, just with a story about how all Scots are thieving lying benefit-scheating heroin addicts every 2 pages...The Record: Biggest scottish daily.
Owned by trinity mirror, much like the Mirror itself, really.
Heavily, extremely pro-Labour, anti-SNP, anti-Scotland and anti-anything-Labour-tell-them-to-be.
On the day of the 2007 Scottish elections (which the SNP won), their editorial predicted a plague on all your houses if you vote SNP etc.
Going out of business fairly soon if they continue to lose readers...The Scotsman: broadsheet, mostly independent; seems to moderately support the SNP now, as well as other liberal ideals.
Quite a nice paper, if I bought a daily it'd probably be this...The Herald: broadsheet; biggest selling "proper" paper in Scotland now, having overtaken the Scotsman.
Politically independent (mostly), and will occasionally criticise Labour or SNP alike.
May well be also folding, many many job losses in recent years.There are others but I can't be bothered and they're mostly all small-fry anyway....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387029</id>
	<title>Re:I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245407400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except for the large number of MPs that didn't claim for everything under the sun. So apparently not everyone would have or did feel the need to steal everything that isn't bolted down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except for the large number of MPs that did n't claim for everything under the sun .
So apparently not everyone would have or did feel the need to steal everything that is n't bolted down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except for the large number of MPs that didn't claim for everything under the sun.
So apparently not everyone would have or did feel the need to steal everything that isn't bolted down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387997</id>
	<title>Re:I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1245417240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yup, my MP claimed a very moderate set of expenses.  To be honest, I'd rather he'd claimed more and actually done his job.  He has one of the lowest attendance records for votes, and the very few times when he's voted against his party his vote has been counter to the interests of his constituents, the country as a whole, or (most often) both.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , my MP claimed a very moderate set of expenses .
To be honest , I 'd rather he 'd claimed more and actually done his job .
He has one of the lowest attendance records for votes , and the very few times when he 's voted against his party his vote has been counter to the interests of his constituents , the country as a whole , or ( most often ) both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, my MP claimed a very moderate set of expenses.
To be honest, I'd rather he'd claimed more and actually done his job.
He has one of the lowest attendance records for votes, and the very few times when he's voted against his party his vote has been counter to the interests of his constituents, the country as a whole, or (most often) both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387717</id>
	<title>Re:Why TF doesn't it happen in US?</title>
	<author>permaculture</author>
	<datestamp>1245415260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I understand it, the US mainstream media is almost entirely owned by a small handful of companies.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration\_of\_media\_ownership" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration\_of\_media\_ownership</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>They often have a vested interest in the stories they choose to report on or avoid.</p><p>e.g.</p><p>&gt; Reporters Steve Wilson and Jane Akre were first asked by FOX News and later bribed,<br>&gt; to downplay a story they had on a cancer-causing growth hormone called Posilac<br>&gt; which is growth hormone for dairy cows which is absorbed by humans through milk.<br>&gt; The reporters decided to blow the whistle on FOX News and filed a law suit.<br>&gt; After the ordeal was over, it was discovered in the appeals court that it's<br>&gt; actually not against the law to falsify the "News."</p><p><a href="http://behavioralhealth.typepad.com/markhams\_behavioral\_healt/food\_and\_drink/" title="typepad.com">http://behavioralhealth.typepad.com/markhams\_behavioral\_healt/food\_and\_drink/</a> [typepad.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I understand it , the US mainstream media is almost entirely owned by a small handful of companies.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration \ _of \ _media \ _ownership [ wikipedia.org ] They often have a vested interest in the stories they choose to report on or avoid.e.g. &gt; Reporters Steve Wilson and Jane Akre were first asked by FOX News and later bribed , &gt; to downplay a story they had on a cancer-causing growth hormone called Posilac &gt; which is growth hormone for dairy cows which is absorbed by humans through milk. &gt; The reporters decided to blow the whistle on FOX News and filed a law suit. &gt; After the ordeal was over , it was discovered in the appeals court that it 's &gt; actually not against the law to falsify the " News .
" http : //behavioralhealth.typepad.com/markhams \ _behavioral \ _healt/food \ _and \ _drink/ [ typepad.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I understand it, the US mainstream media is almost entirely owned by a small handful of companies.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration\_of\_media\_ownership [wikipedia.org]They often have a vested interest in the stories they choose to report on or avoid.e.g.&gt; Reporters Steve Wilson and Jane Akre were first asked by FOX News and later bribed,&gt; to downplay a story they had on a cancer-causing growth hormone called Posilac&gt; which is growth hormone for dairy cows which is absorbed by humans through milk.&gt; The reporters decided to blow the whistle on FOX News and filed a law suit.&gt; After the ordeal was over, it was discovered in the appeals court that it's&gt; actually not against the law to falsify the "News.
"http://behavioralhealth.typepad.com/markhams\_behavioral\_healt/food\_and\_drink/ [typepad.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386877</id>
	<title>This bodes well</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1245405600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two things about crowdsourcing:</p><p>1) It is terribly efficient.</p><p>2) It solicits input from the public.</p><p>Interestingly enough, neither of those are directly related to truth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two things about crowdsourcing : 1 ) It is terribly efficient.2 ) It solicits input from the public.Interestingly enough , neither of those are directly related to truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two things about crowdsourcing:1) It is terribly efficient.2) It solicits input from the public.Interestingly enough, neither of those are directly related to truth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390397</id>
	<title>Re:Duck Islands</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245428100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except we're not holding them to our ideals or expectations - we're holding them to their own ideals and expectations that they expect us to live up to while conning us for everything they can get.</p><p>A benefit 'cheat' that didn't explicitly break the law, but was given more than he should be would still be labelled a cheat and the expectation is to pay it back.</p><p>Fred Goodwin hadn't broken any laws, but the Government ministers were still amongst the first to condemn him for his immorality (rightly so btw).</p><p>They act like the paragon of holiness - they are so pure they can hand down laws to govern every aspect of our lives based on some supposedly universal morality... but they can't keep their hands out of the bloody tills?! Thats the problem, who the fuck are they to bemoan the collapse of our culture and integrity?</p><p>Not that I expect any different actions from a politician, I just don't think I should have to put up 8-12 years of moral rhetoric and guilt trips from some bastard that doesn't even have enough integrity to follow his own rules (or morals in this case). If they're going to object to me being a thieving, cheating bastard then they better not be one as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except we 're not holding them to our ideals or expectations - we 're holding them to their own ideals and expectations that they expect us to live up to while conning us for everything they can get.A benefit 'cheat ' that did n't explicitly break the law , but was given more than he should be would still be labelled a cheat and the expectation is to pay it back.Fred Goodwin had n't broken any laws , but the Government ministers were still amongst the first to condemn him for his immorality ( rightly so btw ) .They act like the paragon of holiness - they are so pure they can hand down laws to govern every aspect of our lives based on some supposedly universal morality... but they ca n't keep their hands out of the bloody tills ? !
Thats the problem , who the fuck are they to bemoan the collapse of our culture and integrity ? Not that I expect any different actions from a politician , I just do n't think I should have to put up 8-12 years of moral rhetoric and guilt trips from some bastard that does n't even have enough integrity to follow his own rules ( or morals in this case ) .
If they 're going to object to me being a thieving , cheating bastard then they better not be one as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except we're not holding them to our ideals or expectations - we're holding them to their own ideals and expectations that they expect us to live up to while conning us for everything they can get.A benefit 'cheat' that didn't explicitly break the law, but was given more than he should be would still be labelled a cheat and the expectation is to pay it back.Fred Goodwin hadn't broken any laws, but the Government ministers were still amongst the first to condemn him for his immorality (rightly so btw).They act like the paragon of holiness - they are so pure they can hand down laws to govern every aspect of our lives based on some supposedly universal morality... but they can't keep their hands out of the bloody tills?!
Thats the problem, who the fuck are they to bemoan the collapse of our culture and integrity?Not that I expect any different actions from a politician, I just don't think I should have to put up 8-12 years of moral rhetoric and guilt trips from some bastard that doesn't even have enough integrity to follow his own rules (or morals in this case).
If they're going to object to me being a thieving, cheating bastard then they better not be one as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387033</id>
	<title>WOW</title>
	<author>xlotlu</author>
	<datestamp>1245407460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just WOW. Look at all the shenanigans they dug out in just one day:
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/jun/18/mps-expenses-houseofcommons" title="guardian.co.uk">http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/jun/18/mps-expenses-houseofcommons</a> [guardian.co.uk] </p><p>Great idea and good job Guardian.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just WOW .
Look at all the shenanigans they dug out in just one day : http : //www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/jun/18/mps-expenses-houseofcommons [ guardian.co.uk ] Great idea and good job Guardian .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just WOW.
Look at all the shenanigans they dug out in just one day:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/jun/18/mps-expenses-houseofcommons [guardian.co.uk] Great idea and good job Guardian.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387225</id>
	<title>Re:Waste of time?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245409740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are some cracking findings in there<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. what amazes me is the complete switch in perception. Diane Abbott is almost a paragon of virtue because the only thing she does is to take the maximum allowance of &#194;&pound;250 a month for her "petty cash". I had a look at Tim Yeo, wondered how anyone could spend &#194;&pound;1200 in a month on a mobile phone bill on a regular basis. But then, he did spend &#194;&pound;3000 on some shelving for his office, so maybe he has expensive tastes (at our expense). I looked at the MP for Gosport, failed to find reference to Duck Island, instead found he (sorry, we taxpayers) had paid for the local conservative association to refurbish the offices that he subsequently rented from them. And it costs him &#194;&pound;19,000 a year to maintain their garden, to which we contribute.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are some cracking findings in there .. what amazes me is the complete switch in perception .
Diane Abbott is almost a paragon of virtue because the only thing she does is to take the maximum allowance of     250 a month for her " petty cash " .
I had a look at Tim Yeo , wondered how anyone could spend     1200 in a month on a mobile phone bill on a regular basis .
But then , he did spend     3000 on some shelving for his office , so maybe he has expensive tastes ( at our expense ) .
I looked at the MP for Gosport , failed to find reference to Duck Island , instead found he ( sorry , we taxpayers ) had paid for the local conservative association to refurbish the offices that he subsequently rented from them .
And it costs him     19,000 a year to maintain their garden , to which we contribute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are some cracking findings in there .. what amazes me is the complete switch in perception.
Diane Abbott is almost a paragon of virtue because the only thing she does is to take the maximum allowance of Â£250 a month for her "petty cash".
I had a look at Tim Yeo, wondered how anyone could spend Â£1200 in a month on a mobile phone bill on a regular basis.
But then, he did spend Â£3000 on some shelving for his office, so maybe he has expensive tastes (at our expense).
I looked at the MP for Gosport, failed to find reference to Duck Island, instead found he (sorry, we taxpayers) had paid for the local conservative association to refurbish the offices that he subsequently rented from them.
And it costs him Â£19,000 a year to maintain their garden, to which we contribute.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387887</id>
	<title>Re:I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>khakipuce</author>
	<datestamp>1245416760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thing is they should have had the political balls to pay them selves a salary comensurate with their (percieved) status rather than hiding it in expenses - it was bound to catch them out sooner or later. However sucessive governments have failed to up the salaries, and to compensate they have made the expenses system increasingly lax.</p><p>
That way if we thought they paid themselves too much we could vote them out at the next election, personally I don't mind them getting similar average salaries to that of professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc) and I think it is important that we encourage people with real careers to move into the politcail system. </p><p>
Like I said, they should have had the guts to win the argument over salaries rather than trying to hide it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thing is they should have had the political balls to pay them selves a salary comensurate with their ( percieved ) status rather than hiding it in expenses - it was bound to catch them out sooner or later .
However sucessive governments have failed to up the salaries , and to compensate they have made the expenses system increasingly lax .
That way if we thought they paid themselves too much we could vote them out at the next election , personally I do n't mind them getting similar average salaries to that of professionals ( doctors , lawyers , etc ) and I think it is important that we encourage people with real careers to move into the politcail system .
Like I said , they should have had the guts to win the argument over salaries rather than trying to hide it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thing is they should have had the political balls to pay them selves a salary comensurate with their (percieved) status rather than hiding it in expenses - it was bound to catch them out sooner or later.
However sucessive governments have failed to up the salaries, and to compensate they have made the expenses system increasingly lax.
That way if we thought they paid themselves too much we could vote them out at the next election, personally I don't mind them getting similar average salaries to that of professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc) and I think it is important that we encourage people with real careers to move into the politcail system.
Like I said, they should have had the guts to win the argument over salaries rather than trying to hide it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387653</id>
	<title>Re:Why TF doesn't it happen in US?</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1245414600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So.  The British press is shit.</p></div><p>Hey! What about The Register?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So .
The British press is shit.Hey !
What about The Register ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So.
The British press is shit.Hey!
What about The Register?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28389875</id>
	<title>Re:Power to the people!</title>
	<author>Simon Brooke</author>
	<datestamp>1245425940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hardly. This is a set of expenses paid for by the taxpayers, and we have also had to pay to have it censored before it was released. Ostensibly this was for privacy, but it was more likely to hide the shame of our MPs. Some of the most unforgivable expenses-laundering (flipping the status of primary and secondary residences to avoid capital gains tax and to gain a property portfolio at our expense) is hidden in the official release. In the meantime the Telegraph got a hold of the unredacted claims a month before now through a leak.</p></div><p>Although they haven't published it in full yet, preferring to cherry pick. They claim they're going to publish more details tomorrow - we will see. Having now done my share of inputting on the Grauniad's site, I can tell you that I saw one page (John Austin MP) in which the entire page except the amount being claimed was redacted. So we don't know to whom our taxes were paid, and we don't know what for. As far as I'm concerned that is wholly unacceptable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hardly .
This is a set of expenses paid for by the taxpayers , and we have also had to pay to have it censored before it was released .
Ostensibly this was for privacy , but it was more likely to hide the shame of our MPs .
Some of the most unforgivable expenses-laundering ( flipping the status of primary and secondary residences to avoid capital gains tax and to gain a property portfolio at our expense ) is hidden in the official release .
In the meantime the Telegraph got a hold of the unredacted claims a month before now through a leak.Although they have n't published it in full yet , preferring to cherry pick .
They claim they 're going to publish more details tomorrow - we will see .
Having now done my share of inputting on the Grauniad 's site , I can tell you that I saw one page ( John Austin MP ) in which the entire page except the amount being claimed was redacted .
So we do n't know to whom our taxes were paid , and we do n't know what for .
As far as I 'm concerned that is wholly unacceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hardly.
This is a set of expenses paid for by the taxpayers, and we have also had to pay to have it censored before it was released.
Ostensibly this was for privacy, but it was more likely to hide the shame of our MPs.
Some of the most unforgivable expenses-laundering (flipping the status of primary and secondary residences to avoid capital gains tax and to gain a property portfolio at our expense) is hidden in the official release.
In the meantime the Telegraph got a hold of the unredacted claims a month before now through a leak.Although they haven't published it in full yet, preferring to cherry pick.
They claim they're going to publish more details tomorrow - we will see.
Having now done my share of inputting on the Grauniad's site, I can tell you that I saw one page (John Austin MP) in which the entire page except the amount being claimed was redacted.
So we don't know to whom our taxes were paid, and we don't know what for.
As far as I'm concerned that is wholly unacceptable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28389619</id>
	<title>Re:I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>sribe</author>
	<datestamp>1245424920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But I'm pretty sure that almost ANYONE in their shoes would have done the same..</p></div><p>There are plenty of people in this world who would not have done so because they are inherently honest, not merely honest when they know they're being watched.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Flame away but i probably would have.</p></div><p>So, like many inherently dishonest people, you don't understand that most people are actually not like you, but are driven by their own ethical standards, not mere fear of discovery.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I 'm pretty sure that almost ANYONE in their shoes would have done the same..There are plenty of people in this world who would not have done so because they are inherently honest , not merely honest when they know they 're being watched.Flame away but i probably would have.So , like many inherently dishonest people , you do n't understand that most people are actually not like you , but are driven by their own ethical standards , not mere fear of discovery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I'm pretty sure that almost ANYONE in their shoes would have done the same..There are plenty of people in this world who would not have done so because they are inherently honest, not merely honest when they know they're being watched.Flame away but i probably would have.So, like many inherently dishonest people, you don't understand that most people are actually not like you, but are driven by their own ethical standards, not mere fear of discovery.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28398089</id>
	<title>Re:Power to the people!</title>
	<author>david.given</author>
	<datestamp>1245420180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Power corrupts, but we all need electricity."<br>
--- Diana Wynne Jones</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Power corrupts , but we all need electricity .
" --- Diana Wynne Jones</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Power corrupts, but we all need electricity.
"
--- Diana Wynne Jones</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387971</id>
	<title>Re:Why TF doesn't it happen in US?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245417180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot the Sunday sport, which for the benefit of our American friends has nothing to do with sport but does come out on a Sunday.  It's the only news paper worth reading because it doesn't pretend to be telling the truth.  You can think of it as the National Enquirer meets the Onion with none of the intellectual bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot the Sunday sport , which for the benefit of our American friends has nothing to do with sport but does come out on a Sunday .
It 's the only news paper worth reading because it does n't pretend to be telling the truth .
You can think of it as the National Enquirer meets the Onion with none of the intellectual bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot the Sunday sport, which for the benefit of our American friends has nothing to do with sport but does come out on a Sunday.
It's the only news paper worth reading because it doesn't pretend to be telling the truth.
You can think of it as the National Enquirer meets the Onion with none of the intellectual bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28388235</id>
	<title>Re:Why TF doesn't it happen in US?</title>
	<author>Godwin O'Hitler</author>
	<datestamp>1245418860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can also add to the list, "Daily Express: see Daily Mail"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can also add to the list , " Daily Express : see Daily Mail "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can also add to the list, "Daily Express: see Daily Mail"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387055</id>
	<title>one problem</title>
	<author>squoozer</author>
	<datestamp>1245407700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They will get 690,000 pages tagged investigate this. Given an open and apparently unchecked money source the MP's will have pushed every last thting they can through the system. I've heard a few people on the news saying that we should think ourselves lucky because corruption in other (developing) nations is so much worse. That has got to be one of the most idiotic arguments I've ever heard. I'm not about to advocate stringing them up but there are at least a few cases that should be investigated by the police and numerous others that should result in sackings. I suspect though that the police will never become involved and so far I don't think anyone has been sacked (quite a few have jumped before being pushed).</p><p>I don't think anyone expected their MP to be whiter than white. People would have turned a blind eye to claims for a few extra miles traveled and a bit of food and maybe even some modest second home improvement / repair but some of these MPs have been claiming for houses they didn't even own! IMHO the worst revelation is that it would appear that they even changed the law so that their scond homes were exempt from capital gains tax a luxury that, AFAIK, nobody else can say they have and in a booming house market a loophole that has netted many MPs sizable amounts of money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They will get 690,000 pages tagged investigate this .
Given an open and apparently unchecked money source the MP 's will have pushed every last thting they can through the system .
I 've heard a few people on the news saying that we should think ourselves lucky because corruption in other ( developing ) nations is so much worse .
That has got to be one of the most idiotic arguments I 've ever heard .
I 'm not about to advocate stringing them up but there are at least a few cases that should be investigated by the police and numerous others that should result in sackings .
I suspect though that the police will never become involved and so far I do n't think anyone has been sacked ( quite a few have jumped before being pushed ) .I do n't think anyone expected their MP to be whiter than white .
People would have turned a blind eye to claims for a few extra miles traveled and a bit of food and maybe even some modest second home improvement / repair but some of these MPs have been claiming for houses they did n't even own !
IMHO the worst revelation is that it would appear that they even changed the law so that their scond homes were exempt from capital gains tax a luxury that , AFAIK , nobody else can say they have and in a booming house market a loophole that has netted many MPs sizable amounts of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They will get 690,000 pages tagged investigate this.
Given an open and apparently unchecked money source the MP's will have pushed every last thting they can through the system.
I've heard a few people on the news saying that we should think ourselves lucky because corruption in other (developing) nations is so much worse.
That has got to be one of the most idiotic arguments I've ever heard.
I'm not about to advocate stringing them up but there are at least a few cases that should be investigated by the police and numerous others that should result in sackings.
I suspect though that the police will never become involved and so far I don't think anyone has been sacked (quite a few have jumped before being pushed).I don't think anyone expected their MP to be whiter than white.
People would have turned a blind eye to claims for a few extra miles traveled and a bit of food and maybe even some modest second home improvement / repair but some of these MPs have been claiming for houses they didn't even own!
IMHO the worst revelation is that it would appear that they even changed the law so that their scond homes were exempt from capital gains tax a luxury that, AFAIK, nobody else can say they have and in a booming house market a loophole that has netted many MPs sizable amounts of money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28398341</id>
	<title>Re:I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>illtud</author>
	<datestamp>1245422580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I cannot even begin to comprehend the thinking behind the idea that taxpayers should be funding anyone's second home.  I find it incomprehensible that everyone is arguing about the semantics of first vs second home, without even taking a second to think about the fundamental principle.</i></p><p>There's a very good reason for MPs allowances for 2nd homes. Before any such allowances, only rich people could be MPs - most represent constituencies far from London, and parliament sits in London. Take away any provision for paying for a London base during the week and you immediately remove most people from being able to represent their community in Parliament.</p><p>UK politicians aren't like the US - their expenses aren't funded by their parties. Yes, there's been terrible abuses exposed in this affair, but still *most* MPs have been shown to claim for nothing more than the expense of having to have a London base in addition to where they live.</p><p>Without the 2nd home expense, we'd regress to having no MPs except the independently wealthy. Not that MPs salaries aren't generous compared to the average, but anybody would be hard pressed to keep a London base and travel back &amp; forth to a family home in outer constituencies (ie, a good share of them) without recompense.</p><p>Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Otherwise we'd be back to only 'gentlemen MPs' which we got rid of some 40 years ago. I've known a couple of local MPs, and they're local people, shopping in the same local shops as me, approachable on the street, connected to local people. Without the support of expenses, they'd never been able to afford to represent their consistency in Parliament. (not one of the big 3 parties, but even in that case, you don't want to limit yourself to independently wealthy MPs)</p><p>[ps - I've tried and tried to get spacing between paragraphs on this post, but nothing seems to work. Apologies]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can not even begin to comprehend the thinking behind the idea that taxpayers should be funding anyone 's second home .
I find it incomprehensible that everyone is arguing about the semantics of first vs second home , without even taking a second to think about the fundamental principle.There 's a very good reason for MPs allowances for 2nd homes .
Before any such allowances , only rich people could be MPs - most represent constituencies far from London , and parliament sits in London .
Take away any provision for paying for a London base during the week and you immediately remove most people from being able to represent their community in Parliament.UK politicians are n't like the US - their expenses are n't funded by their parties .
Yes , there 's been terrible abuses exposed in this affair , but still * most * MPs have been shown to claim for nothing more than the expense of having to have a London base in addition to where they live.Without the 2nd home expense , we 'd regress to having no MPs except the independently wealthy .
Not that MPs salaries are n't generous compared to the average , but anybody would be hard pressed to keep a London base and travel back &amp; forth to a family home in outer constituencies ( ie , a good share of them ) without recompense.Do n't throw the baby out with the bathwater .
Otherwise we 'd be back to only 'gentlemen MPs ' which we got rid of some 40 years ago .
I 've known a couple of local MPs , and they 're local people , shopping in the same local shops as me , approachable on the street , connected to local people .
Without the support of expenses , they 'd never been able to afford to represent their consistency in Parliament .
( not one of the big 3 parties , but even in that case , you do n't want to limit yourself to independently wealthy MPs ) [ ps - I 've tried and tried to get spacing between paragraphs on this post , but nothing seems to work .
Apologies ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I cannot even begin to comprehend the thinking behind the idea that taxpayers should be funding anyone's second home.
I find it incomprehensible that everyone is arguing about the semantics of first vs second home, without even taking a second to think about the fundamental principle.There's a very good reason for MPs allowances for 2nd homes.
Before any such allowances, only rich people could be MPs - most represent constituencies far from London, and parliament sits in London.
Take away any provision for paying for a London base during the week and you immediately remove most people from being able to represent their community in Parliament.UK politicians aren't like the US - their expenses aren't funded by their parties.
Yes, there's been terrible abuses exposed in this affair, but still *most* MPs have been shown to claim for nothing more than the expense of having to have a London base in addition to where they live.Without the 2nd home expense, we'd regress to having no MPs except the independently wealthy.
Not that MPs salaries aren't generous compared to the average, but anybody would be hard pressed to keep a London base and travel back &amp; forth to a family home in outer constituencies (ie, a good share of them) without recompense.Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Otherwise we'd be back to only 'gentlemen MPs' which we got rid of some 40 years ago.
I've known a couple of local MPs, and they're local people, shopping in the same local shops as me, approachable on the street, connected to local people.
Without the support of expenses, they'd never been able to afford to represent their consistency in Parliament.
(not one of the big 3 parties, but even in that case, you don't want to limit yourself to independently wealthy MPs)[ps - I've tried and tried to get spacing between paragraphs on this post, but nothing seems to work.
Apologies]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390395</id>
	<title>Re:Waste of time?</title>
	<author>TheQuantumShift</author>
	<datestamp>1245428100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Geez, you'd think the PM could get a better deal than $200/mo. for satellite... Not saying he should get special privileges, but dammit man, shop around!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Geez , you 'd think the PM could get a better deal than $ 200/mo .
for satellite... Not saying he should get special privileges , but dammit man , shop around !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Geez, you'd think the PM could get a better deal than $200/mo.
for satellite... Not saying he should get special privileges, but dammit man, shop around!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386969</id>
	<title>Duck Islands</title>
	<author>CmdrGravy</author>
	<datestamp>1245406800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As it happens though the claim for the duck island does not appear in the official expenses data as it's blacked out along with, I would guess, almost anything else likely to cause embarrassment for the MP.</p><p>Apparently once the fees office had blacked out the bits they didn't think the public should see the MPs had several months to look at their own claims and recommend any other sections they didn't think should be public so when you look at the actual claims, and some MPs are much worse than others, there is an awful lot you can't see.</p><p>What really pisses me off is the string of MPs saying</p><p>"Well my claim was completely within the rules and I have done nothing wrong however I now realise the rules were horribly wrong and fundamentally flawed so what we need to do is change the rules to make them stricter."</p><p>No ! What you need to do is behave in an honest and honourable fashion and not try to screw the system for as much as you think you can get away with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As it happens though the claim for the duck island does not appear in the official expenses data as it 's blacked out along with , I would guess , almost anything else likely to cause embarrassment for the MP.Apparently once the fees office had blacked out the bits they did n't think the public should see the MPs had several months to look at their own claims and recommend any other sections they did n't think should be public so when you look at the actual claims , and some MPs are much worse than others , there is an awful lot you ca n't see.What really pisses me off is the string of MPs saying " Well my claim was completely within the rules and I have done nothing wrong however I now realise the rules were horribly wrong and fundamentally flawed so what we need to do is change the rules to make them stricter .
" No !
What you need to do is behave in an honest and honourable fashion and not try to screw the system for as much as you think you can get away with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As it happens though the claim for the duck island does not appear in the official expenses data as it's blacked out along with, I would guess, almost anything else likely to cause embarrassment for the MP.Apparently once the fees office had blacked out the bits they didn't think the public should see the MPs had several months to look at their own claims and recommend any other sections they didn't think should be public so when you look at the actual claims, and some MPs are much worse than others, there is an awful lot you can't see.What really pisses me off is the string of MPs saying"Well my claim was completely within the rules and I have done nothing wrong however I now realise the rules were horribly wrong and fundamentally flawed so what we need to do is change the rules to make them stricter.
"No !
What you need to do is behave in an honest and honourable fashion and not try to screw the system for as much as you think you can get away with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28393689</id>
	<title>Re:I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>Patch86</author>
	<datestamp>1245441840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I can't understand is why the punishment doesn't fit the crime.</p><p>If I own a house, and my company agrees to rent me a second place as they wish me to spend half my time elsewhere, that's fine and legitimate. If I then charge the company expenses to redecorate my original house, they'd be mad. I'd be forced to pay back every penny. If I were to already have a house 1 mile from the rented apartment, which I proceed to live in, letting my brother run a small business out of the rented apartment, they'd be mad. I'd get fired. If I then lie to the Inland Revenue that the rented studio apartment is my main home, so that I can sell my original home without paying capital gains tax, they'd be mad. I'd go to prison.</p><p>That there is even the slightest question that they should pay back illegitimate claims, be fired for employee fraud, or criminally prosecuted for tax evasion (whichever applicable) is what is so outrageous about all this. People may or may not be natural scammers, but that's exactly what the rules are there to reign in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I ca n't understand is why the punishment does n't fit the crime.If I own a house , and my company agrees to rent me a second place as they wish me to spend half my time elsewhere , that 's fine and legitimate .
If I then charge the company expenses to redecorate my original house , they 'd be mad .
I 'd be forced to pay back every penny .
If I were to already have a house 1 mile from the rented apartment , which I proceed to live in , letting my brother run a small business out of the rented apartment , they 'd be mad .
I 'd get fired .
If I then lie to the Inland Revenue that the rented studio apartment is my main home , so that I can sell my original home without paying capital gains tax , they 'd be mad .
I 'd go to prison.That there is even the slightest question that they should pay back illegitimate claims , be fired for employee fraud , or criminally prosecuted for tax evasion ( whichever applicable ) is what is so outrageous about all this .
People may or may not be natural scammers , but that 's exactly what the rules are there to reign in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I can't understand is why the punishment doesn't fit the crime.If I own a house, and my company agrees to rent me a second place as they wish me to spend half my time elsewhere, that's fine and legitimate.
If I then charge the company expenses to redecorate my original house, they'd be mad.
I'd be forced to pay back every penny.
If I were to already have a house 1 mile from the rented apartment, which I proceed to live in, letting my brother run a small business out of the rented apartment, they'd be mad.
I'd get fired.
If I then lie to the Inland Revenue that the rented studio apartment is my main home, so that I can sell my original home without paying capital gains tax, they'd be mad.
I'd go to prison.That there is even the slightest question that they should pay back illegitimate claims, be fired for employee fraud, or criminally prosecuted for tax evasion (whichever applicable) is what is so outrageous about all this.
People may or may not be natural scammers, but that's exactly what the rules are there to reign in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387223</id>
	<title>Nothing to see in there</title>
	<author>kno3</author>
	<datestamp>1245409740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the censored database, there is nothing interesting or even slightly embarrassing left in here.  Almost all of the scandals exposed by the Telegraph from their database has been censored out of this one, and there are huge amounts of other blanked out parts.  I'm afraid that we will never know just how bad this got.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the censored database , there is nothing interesting or even slightly embarrassing left in here .
Almost all of the scandals exposed by the Telegraph from their database has been censored out of this one , and there are huge amounts of other blanked out parts .
I 'm afraid that we will never know just how bad this got .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the censored database, there is nothing interesting or even slightly embarrassing left in here.
Almost all of the scandals exposed by the Telegraph from their database has been censored out of this one, and there are huge amounts of other blanked out parts.
I'm afraid that we will never know just how bad this got.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386837</id>
	<title>Power to the people!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245405120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do I need to say more?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do I need to say more ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do I need to say more?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387639</id>
	<title>Re:This bodes well</title>
	<author>locster</author>
	<datestamp>1245414420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So it's not efficient then? I mean, efficient with respect to what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So it 's not efficient then ?
I mean , efficient with respect to what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it's not efficient then?
I mean, efficient with respect to what?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28388215</id>
	<title>AKA Teamwork</title>
	<author>sherriw</author>
	<datestamp>1245418740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do we really need buzzwords for everything. "Crowd sourcing" isn't really new- it's called team work.</p><p>*sigh*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we really need buzzwords for everything .
" Crowd sourcing " is n't really new- it 's called team work .
* sigh *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we really need buzzwords for everything.
"Crowd sourcing" isn't really new- it's called team work.
*sigh*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387553</id>
	<title>Re:Waste of time?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245413460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As we know the scan is just an image of the document. A few years ago the blacked out part was just an extra layer added and could be removed to reveal what was behind it.<br>
&nbsp; Our local council used to use this method but has since reverted to using tipex on all the parts not to be viewed before the document was scanned.</p><p>If it's been done with a computer it can be undone with a computer...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As we know the scan is just an image of the document .
A few years ago the blacked out part was just an extra layer added and could be removed to reveal what was behind it .
  Our local council used to use this method but has since reverted to using tipex on all the parts not to be viewed before the document was scanned.If it 's been done with a computer it can be undone with a computer.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As we know the scan is just an image of the document.
A few years ago the blacked out part was just an extra layer added and could be removed to reveal what was behind it.
  Our local council used to use this method but has since reverted to using tipex on all the parts not to be viewed before the document was scanned.If it's been done with a computer it can be undone with a computer...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387021</id>
	<title>WhatTheyClaimed</title>
	<author>Tomun</author>
	<datestamp>1245407280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The mySociety folk that created TheyWorkForYou, PledgeBank and others have their own MP expenses site and also want your help. See here: <a href="http://whattheyclaimed.com/" title="whattheyclaimed.com">http://whattheyclaimed.com/</a> [whattheyclaimed.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The mySociety folk that created TheyWorkForYou , PledgeBank and others have their own MP expenses site and also want your help .
See here : http : //whattheyclaimed.com/ [ whattheyclaimed.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mySociety folk that created TheyWorkForYou, PledgeBank and others have their own MP expenses site and also want your help.
See here: http://whattheyclaimed.com/ [whattheyclaimed.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390183</id>
	<title>Re:Why TF doesn't it happen in US?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245427260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reminds me of one of the best quotes from "Yes, Minister"</p><p>From http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Yes,\_Minister</p><p>Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:<br>The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;<br>The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;<br>The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country;<br>The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;<br>The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;<br>The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;<br>And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.</p><p>Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?</p><p>Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of one of the best quotes from " Yes , Minister " From http : //en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Yes , \ _MinisterHacker : Do n't tell me about the press .
I know exactly who reads the papers : The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country ; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country ; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country ; The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country ; The Financial Times is read by people who own the country ; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country ; And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.Sir Humphrey : Prime Minister , what about the people who read The Sun ? Bernard : Sun readers do n't care who runs the country , as long as she 's got big tits... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of one of the best quotes from "Yes, Minister"From http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Yes,\_MinisterHacker: Don't tell me about the press.
I know exactly who reads the papers:The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country;The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28402297</id>
	<title>Re:I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1245516720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>There's a very good reason for MPs allowances for 2nd homes. Before any such allowances, only rich people could be MPs - most represent constituencies far from London, and parliament sits in London. Take away any provision for paying for a London base during the week and you immediately remove most people from being able to represent their community in Parliament.</i>
</p><p>As I've already pointed out several times, that is justification for needing somewhere to temporarily stay in London, not a taxpayer-funded property portfolio.
</p><p>Long-term leases of serviced apartments (numerous businesses whose employees travel a lot do this) or - less ideally - government-built-and-maintained housing are both vastly superior alternatives than paying someone's (who is likely already relatively wealthy) mortgage.
</p><p>I can understand that politicians need to spend time in London.  I cannot see how anyone could ever have see this scheme as anything other than grotesque and blatant corruption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a very good reason for MPs allowances for 2nd homes .
Before any such allowances , only rich people could be MPs - most represent constituencies far from London , and parliament sits in London .
Take away any provision for paying for a London base during the week and you immediately remove most people from being able to represent their community in Parliament .
As I 've already pointed out several times , that is justification for needing somewhere to temporarily stay in London , not a taxpayer-funded property portfolio .
Long-term leases of serviced apartments ( numerous businesses whose employees travel a lot do this ) or - less ideally - government-built-and-maintained housing are both vastly superior alternatives than paying someone 's ( who is likely already relatively wealthy ) mortgage .
I can understand that politicians need to spend time in London .
I can not see how anyone could ever have see this scheme as anything other than grotesque and blatant corruption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> There's a very good reason for MPs allowances for 2nd homes.
Before any such allowances, only rich people could be MPs - most represent constituencies far from London, and parliament sits in London.
Take away any provision for paying for a London base during the week and you immediately remove most people from being able to represent their community in Parliament.
As I've already pointed out several times, that is justification for needing somewhere to temporarily stay in London, not a taxpayer-funded property portfolio.
Long-term leases of serviced apartments (numerous businesses whose employees travel a lot do this) or - less ideally - government-built-and-maintained housing are both vastly superior alternatives than paying someone's (who is likely already relatively wealthy) mortgage.
I can understand that politicians need to spend time in London.
I cannot see how anyone could ever have see this scheme as anything other than grotesque and blatant corruption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28398341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28393929</id>
	<title>Re:I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>Patch86</author>
	<datestamp>1245442680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Putting MPs up in a hotel would be pretty much as expensive. Even the cheapest Travelodge in London is liable to set you back &#194;&pound;50 a night and up (and good luck getting anyone to live for any protracted amount of time in a place like that without going crazy).</p><p>Renting a home doesn't seem that crazy an alternative, and works out at a similar cost for much better living conditions. Building a big dormitory seems like the best alternative- you could provide decent living conditions for every MP for a much more reasonable cost than you could on the open market, and prevent abuse by making it uniform.</p><p>Fact is that non-London MPs do need two homes. They're expected to spend more than half the year in their constituency, while at the same time turning up almost daily to their office in Westminster. You try telling a Glasgow MP that he should be commuting it every morning for 6 months. You wouldn't expect it of a private employee, so there's no reason to expect it of a public servant. And then try seeing what kind of people actually end up in charge of the country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Putting MPs up in a hotel would be pretty much as expensive .
Even the cheapest Travelodge in London is liable to set you back     50 a night and up ( and good luck getting anyone to live for any protracted amount of time in a place like that without going crazy ) .Renting a home does n't seem that crazy an alternative , and works out at a similar cost for much better living conditions .
Building a big dormitory seems like the best alternative- you could provide decent living conditions for every MP for a much more reasonable cost than you could on the open market , and prevent abuse by making it uniform.Fact is that non-London MPs do need two homes .
They 're expected to spend more than half the year in their constituency , while at the same time turning up almost daily to their office in Westminster .
You try telling a Glasgow MP that he should be commuting it every morning for 6 months .
You would n't expect it of a private employee , so there 's no reason to expect it of a public servant .
And then try seeing what kind of people actually end up in charge of the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Putting MPs up in a hotel would be pretty much as expensive.
Even the cheapest Travelodge in London is liable to set you back Â£50 a night and up (and good luck getting anyone to live for any protracted amount of time in a place like that without going crazy).Renting a home doesn't seem that crazy an alternative, and works out at a similar cost for much better living conditions.
Building a big dormitory seems like the best alternative- you could provide decent living conditions for every MP for a much more reasonable cost than you could on the open market, and prevent abuse by making it uniform.Fact is that non-London MPs do need two homes.
They're expected to spend more than half the year in their constituency, while at the same time turning up almost daily to their office in Westminster.
You try telling a Glasgow MP that he should be commuting it every morning for 6 months.
You wouldn't expect it of a private employee, so there's no reason to expect it of a public servant.
And then try seeing what kind of people actually end up in charge of the country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390105</id>
	<title>Re:I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245426840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Stanford prison experiment seems to indicate that if you put one group in power over another and actively encourage them to be mean and arbitrary, then they will work hard to out-do each other's meanness.  How exactly does this refute the claim that the majority of people will follow rules and honor trust?  It rather seems to support the GP's point that we need to be vigilant against the few individuals who <i>will</i> violate trust and encourage others by example.  You know, the whole "bad apple" thing?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Stanford prison experiment seems to indicate that if you put one group in power over another and actively encourage them to be mean and arbitrary , then they will work hard to out-do each other 's meanness .
How exactly does this refute the claim that the majority of people will follow rules and honor trust ?
It rather seems to support the GP 's point that we need to be vigilant against the few individuals who will violate trust and encourage others by example .
You know , the whole " bad apple " thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Stanford prison experiment seems to indicate that if you put one group in power over another and actively encourage them to be mean and arbitrary, then they will work hard to out-do each other's meanness.
How exactly does this refute the claim that the majority of people will follow rules and honor trust?
It rather seems to support the GP's point that we need to be vigilant against the few individuals who will violate trust and encourage others by example.
You know, the whole "bad apple" thing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387631</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387769</id>
	<title>Re:Why TF doesn't it happen in US?</title>
	<author>jonnyt886</author>
	<datestamp>1245415800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, the Times isn't like the Sun, ok.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , the Times is n't like the Sun , ok. : /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, the Times isn't like the Sun, ok. :/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387241</id>
	<title>Re:Waste of time?</title>
	<author>ionix5891</author>
	<datestamp>1245409920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gordon Brown watches Sky News? No wonder!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gordon Brown watches Sky News ?
No wonder !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gordon Brown watches Sky News?
No wonder!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28394105</id>
	<title>Re:Why TF doesn't it happen in US?</title>
	<author>Patch86</author>
	<datestamp>1245443340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tend to read The Independent, which is fine as long as you can stand to wade through the preaching. The actual reporting tends to be reasonably solid (taken with the same salt all news should be taken with), and it does tend to pick up stories that the others don't.</p><p>I don't think British papers as a whole are any worse than papers anywhere else in the world. Ultimately though, I wouldn't read any of the papers if I had internet access on my lunch breaks. For me, it's either papers or I'm forced to interact with the world on my hour off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tend to read The Independent , which is fine as long as you can stand to wade through the preaching .
The actual reporting tends to be reasonably solid ( taken with the same salt all news should be taken with ) , and it does tend to pick up stories that the others do n't.I do n't think British papers as a whole are any worse than papers anywhere else in the world .
Ultimately though , I would n't read any of the papers if I had internet access on my lunch breaks .
For me , it 's either papers or I 'm forced to interact with the world on my hour off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tend to read The Independent, which is fine as long as you can stand to wade through the preaching.
The actual reporting tends to be reasonably solid (taken with the same salt all news should be taken with), and it does tend to pick up stories that the others don't.I don't think British papers as a whole are any worse than papers anywhere else in the world.
Ultimately though, I wouldn't read any of the papers if I had internet access on my lunch breaks.
For me, it's either papers or I'm forced to interact with the world on my hour off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387287</id>
	<title>Re:But will it work?</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1245410340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's just over 1000 per MP.  50 people from each constituency can do 20 sheets each.  Mostly they are till receipts which don't take long to look at.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's just over 1000 per MP .
50 people from each constituency can do 20 sheets each .
Mostly they are till receipts which do n't take long to look at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's just over 1000 per MP.
50 people from each constituency can do 20 sheets each.
Mostly they are till receipts which don't take long to look at.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387549</id>
	<title>Re:I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>fedtmule</author>
	<datestamp>1245413400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am with you on this one. Especially, since the bad behavior had decades to build up.

What I do not get, is why the British don't just pay the MPs a fixed amount for the expense of maintaining an extra home. If they use less, they stuff it untaxed in their pocket. If they use more, they take it nondeductible from their pocket. Seems fair to me. After all, if you want your second home to be a small castle, should you not pay for it yourself?

I have heard about this case, only from our local reporters (a live in Denmark, Scandinavia) and they talked of different remedies proposed. And all I could here, was more and more bureaucracy. And sure, in the beginning this is going to work. Especially, since politicians are scared shirtless now. But in 30-40 years, when the case is almost forgotten and the bureaucrats have gotten lazy, they are going to have similar scandal again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am with you on this one .
Especially , since the bad behavior had decades to build up .
What I do not get , is why the British do n't just pay the MPs a fixed amount for the expense of maintaining an extra home .
If they use less , they stuff it untaxed in their pocket .
If they use more , they take it nondeductible from their pocket .
Seems fair to me .
After all , if you want your second home to be a small castle , should you not pay for it yourself ?
I have heard about this case , only from our local reporters ( a live in Denmark , Scandinavia ) and they talked of different remedies proposed .
And all I could here , was more and more bureaucracy .
And sure , in the beginning this is going to work .
Especially , since politicians are scared shirtless now .
But in 30-40 years , when the case is almost forgotten and the bureaucrats have gotten lazy , they are going to have similar scandal again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am with you on this one.
Especially, since the bad behavior had decades to build up.
What I do not get, is why the British don't just pay the MPs a fixed amount for the expense of maintaining an extra home.
If they use less, they stuff it untaxed in their pocket.
If they use more, they take it nondeductible from their pocket.
Seems fair to me.
After all, if you want your second home to be a small castle, should you not pay for it yourself?
I have heard about this case, only from our local reporters (a live in Denmark, Scandinavia) and they talked of different remedies proposed.
And all I could here, was more and more bureaucracy.
And sure, in the beginning this is going to work.
Especially, since politicians are scared shirtless now.
But in 30-40 years, when the case is almost forgotten and the bureaucrats have gotten lazy, they are going to have similar scandal again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387771</id>
	<title>Re:Why TF doesn't it happen in US?</title>
	<author>ettlz</author>
	<datestamp>1245415800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now hang on, you forgot The Sport!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now hang on , you forgot The Sport !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now hang on, you forgot The Sport!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28400127</id>
	<title>Re:I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245489960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Building a big dormitory seems like the best alternative</p></div><p>Oh Jesus, they spend most of their childhood in boarding schools and now you want to send them back again.</p><p>Just buy them a big castle and make it look like Hogwarts. They could eventually recoup the cost by having tours.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Building a big dormitory seems like the best alternativeOh Jesus , they spend most of their childhood in boarding schools and now you want to send them back again.Just buy them a big castle and make it look like Hogwarts .
They could eventually recoup the cost by having tours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Building a big dormitory seems like the best alternativeOh Jesus, they spend most of their childhood in boarding schools and now you want to send them back again.Just buy them a big castle and make it look like Hogwarts.
They could eventually recoup the cost by having tours.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28393929</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387067</id>
	<title>Re:I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1245407880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm pretty sure that almost ANYONE in their shoes would have done the same</p></div></blockquote><p>Which is why we shouldn't be electing just anyone, but testing their ethics and wisdom etc. at least, or better yet, not electing representatives at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure that almost ANYONE in their shoes would have done the sameWhich is why we should n't be electing just anyone , but testing their ethics and wisdom etc .
at least , or better yet , not electing representatives at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure that almost ANYONE in their shoes would have done the sameWhich is why we shouldn't be electing just anyone, but testing their ethics and wisdom etc.
at least, or better yet, not electing representatives at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387483</id>
	<title>Re:Why TF doesn't it happen in US?</title>
	<author>sqldr</author>
	<datestamp>1245412740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It works both ways.  The British government and the American government simultaneously had meetings with the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England 2 days ago.</p><p>Obama came out with tough new regulations.  Gordon Brown came saying one wishy washy thing, whilst the Bank of England didn't get the tougher regulations they were asking for, and now want to challenge the government in court.</p><p>And as for the British press being cool, here's a quick rundown:</p><p>The Sun: Trashy tabloid, most popular paper, tells thick people who to vote for.  Banned in Liverpool after a controversial story suggesting Liverpool fans were responsible for the Hillsborough disaster</p><p>The Mirror: Wishes it was the sun.  Even more trashy.</p><p>The Times: Owned by Murdoch, like the Sun, but seems to understand that its readerbase has brains, whilst trying to slip political opinion through without you noticing.</p><p>The Independent: "independent", my arse.  I used to read this.  As much as I was against the Iraq war, I don't appreciate being lectured on it on a daily basis.  They like preaching to the converted.  People supposedly buy this one because it lacks opinion.  The editor is best mates with the head of MI6.  Also horrifically boring.</p><p>The Daily Mail: Right wing christian crap, obsessed with house prices and Elizabeth Hurley.  Encourages people who haven't even watched the show to complain to the BBC about someone saying something rude, and complain they do, in their thousands.</p><p>The Guardian: They write this in a very small font, just so they can fit in the HUGE essays written by political activists who like to drone on and on and on about some green issue whilst everyone else has fallen asleep.  You can read the entirety of the Sun in the time it takes to read the front page of the Guardian.</p><p>The Telegraph: Like the Daily Mail, but with less readers.  Also obsessed with Elizabeth Hurley.  Source of the expenses scandal, which they've been milking for nearly 2 months now.  Ok, the MPs did wrong, but they also have jobs to do, and all they've been doing for the past 2 months is apologise, resign, and shout at eachother.</p><p>The People: Apparently still running.  First UK paper to be printed in colour, but I haven't seen it on sale anywhere for years.</p><p>Metro: Free newspaper found outside tube and train stations.  Written by the same company as the daily mail, but with all the political bias taken out.  Designed to be read in 20 minutes.  Always has a stupid non-news story on page 3 about someone's pet cat climbing Everest or something.  Letters page</p><p>Various regional newspapers: "Local man bitten by local dog in local park".  Win tickets to see Neasden FC playing this Saturday!!!</p><p>Private Eye: Fortnightly paper.  Reports on the newspapers themselves.  Prints stuff that newspapers don't dare print from freelance journalists because of the potential implications.  Editor is Ian Hislop who is "the most sued man in Britain".  Very cynical, and often quite funny.</p><p>So.  The British press is shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It works both ways .
The British government and the American government simultaneously had meetings with the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England 2 days ago.Obama came out with tough new regulations .
Gordon Brown came saying one wishy washy thing , whilst the Bank of England did n't get the tougher regulations they were asking for , and now want to challenge the government in court.And as for the British press being cool , here 's a quick rundown : The Sun : Trashy tabloid , most popular paper , tells thick people who to vote for .
Banned in Liverpool after a controversial story suggesting Liverpool fans were responsible for the Hillsborough disasterThe Mirror : Wishes it was the sun .
Even more trashy.The Times : Owned by Murdoch , like the Sun , but seems to understand that its readerbase has brains , whilst trying to slip political opinion through without you noticing.The Independent : " independent " , my arse .
I used to read this .
As much as I was against the Iraq war , I do n't appreciate being lectured on it on a daily basis .
They like preaching to the converted .
People supposedly buy this one because it lacks opinion .
The editor is best mates with the head of MI6 .
Also horrifically boring.The Daily Mail : Right wing christian crap , obsessed with house prices and Elizabeth Hurley .
Encourages people who have n't even watched the show to complain to the BBC about someone saying something rude , and complain they do , in their thousands.The Guardian : They write this in a very small font , just so they can fit in the HUGE essays written by political activists who like to drone on and on and on about some green issue whilst everyone else has fallen asleep .
You can read the entirety of the Sun in the time it takes to read the front page of the Guardian.The Telegraph : Like the Daily Mail , but with less readers .
Also obsessed with Elizabeth Hurley .
Source of the expenses scandal , which they 've been milking for nearly 2 months now .
Ok , the MPs did wrong , but they also have jobs to do , and all they 've been doing for the past 2 months is apologise , resign , and shout at eachother.The People : Apparently still running .
First UK paper to be printed in colour , but I have n't seen it on sale anywhere for years.Metro : Free newspaper found outside tube and train stations .
Written by the same company as the daily mail , but with all the political bias taken out .
Designed to be read in 20 minutes .
Always has a stupid non-news story on page 3 about someone 's pet cat climbing Everest or something .
Letters pageVarious regional newspapers : " Local man bitten by local dog in local park " .
Win tickets to see Neasden FC playing this Saturday ! !
! Private Eye : Fortnightly paper .
Reports on the newspapers themselves .
Prints stuff that newspapers do n't dare print from freelance journalists because of the potential implications .
Editor is Ian Hislop who is " the most sued man in Britain " .
Very cynical , and often quite funny.So .
The British press is shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It works both ways.
The British government and the American government simultaneously had meetings with the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England 2 days ago.Obama came out with tough new regulations.
Gordon Brown came saying one wishy washy thing, whilst the Bank of England didn't get the tougher regulations they were asking for, and now want to challenge the government in court.And as for the British press being cool, here's a quick rundown:The Sun: Trashy tabloid, most popular paper, tells thick people who to vote for.
Banned in Liverpool after a controversial story suggesting Liverpool fans were responsible for the Hillsborough disasterThe Mirror: Wishes it was the sun.
Even more trashy.The Times: Owned by Murdoch, like the Sun, but seems to understand that its readerbase has brains, whilst trying to slip political opinion through without you noticing.The Independent: "independent", my arse.
I used to read this.
As much as I was against the Iraq war, I don't appreciate being lectured on it on a daily basis.
They like preaching to the converted.
People supposedly buy this one because it lacks opinion.
The editor is best mates with the head of MI6.
Also horrifically boring.The Daily Mail: Right wing christian crap, obsessed with house prices and Elizabeth Hurley.
Encourages people who haven't even watched the show to complain to the BBC about someone saying something rude, and complain they do, in their thousands.The Guardian: They write this in a very small font, just so they can fit in the HUGE essays written by political activists who like to drone on and on and on about some green issue whilst everyone else has fallen asleep.
You can read the entirety of the Sun in the time it takes to read the front page of the Guardian.The Telegraph: Like the Daily Mail, but with less readers.
Also obsessed with Elizabeth Hurley.
Source of the expenses scandal, which they've been milking for nearly 2 months now.
Ok, the MPs did wrong, but they also have jobs to do, and all they've been doing for the past 2 months is apologise, resign, and shout at eachother.The People: Apparently still running.
First UK paper to be printed in colour, but I haven't seen it on sale anywhere for years.Metro: Free newspaper found outside tube and train stations.
Written by the same company as the daily mail, but with all the political bias taken out.
Designed to be read in 20 minutes.
Always has a stupid non-news story on page 3 about someone's pet cat climbing Everest or something.
Letters pageVarious regional newspapers: "Local man bitten by local dog in local park".
Win tickets to see Neasden FC playing this Saturday!!
!Private Eye: Fortnightly paper.
Reports on the newspapers themselves.
Prints stuff that newspapers don't dare print from freelance journalists because of the potential implications.
Editor is Ian Hislop who is "the most sued man in Britain".
Very cynical, and often quite funny.So.
The British press is shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390001</id>
	<title>Re:I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>dcollins</author>
	<datestamp>1245426480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, and would add one more commonly-heard rationalization from the 5\% sociopath types: "If you're stupid enough to be taken advantage of, you deserve to lose your money."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , and would add one more commonly-heard rationalization from the 5 \ % sociopath types : " If you 're stupid enough to be taken advantage of , you deserve to lose your money .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, and would add one more commonly-heard rationalization from the 5\% sociopath types: "If you're stupid enough to be taken advantage of, you deserve to lose your money.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28400039</id>
	<title>Re:I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>7 digits</author>
	<datestamp>1245488520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, I have moderated this thread, so my mod will be lost, but I just can't avoid replying. If that's trolling, well done<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>&gt; You are given the power to abuse something and you think nobody will notice....so you do</p><p>No, you don't.</p><p>I've been in the power of abusing for years, and I have never done it. It never even crossed my mind. When I had my own company I had countless opportunity to slightly (or grossly) abuse, and never did. I never ever had the company reimburse stuff like my subway tickets, or meals that weren't clearly business meals (ie: with prospects or customers).</p><p>I've seen a lot of people abusing the system for years and years. We had expenses in euros, but reimbursements in pounds, and I could see people, working for me, that were carefully choosing the exchange rate they could get away with, and being proud of that (because it was tolerated that you could use a slightly higher exchange rate to compensate the fact that your bank add fees when you pay in foreign country).</p><p>You may argue that that was because it was my own company, but I also worked for other people and never ever did any sort of reimbursement fee abuse.</p><p>And, while I've seen people abusing, I've also seen a lot of people deeply honest.</p><p>So, no, it is not because you can take company furniture to your home that you should. It is not because you can come late and leave early that you should. It is not because you can do personal web surfing at work that you should. It is not because you can telecommute and slack off that you should.</p><p>Lately, I've seen this "you are stupid if you don't abuse the system" mentally creeping in higher and higher levels of the society due to the fact that we blindly reward success without regard to any other metric. I believe that it is the root of most of the world problems.</p><p>It is not because you are given the power to wreck the world economy for you profit and get away with it that you should.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I have moderated this thread , so my mod will be lost , but I just ca n't avoid replying .
If that 's trolling , well done : - ) &gt; You are given the power to abuse something and you think nobody will notice....so you doNo , you do n't.I 've been in the power of abusing for years , and I have never done it .
It never even crossed my mind .
When I had my own company I had countless opportunity to slightly ( or grossly ) abuse , and never did .
I never ever had the company reimburse stuff like my subway tickets , or meals that were n't clearly business meals ( ie : with prospects or customers ) .I 've seen a lot of people abusing the system for years and years .
We had expenses in euros , but reimbursements in pounds , and I could see people , working for me , that were carefully choosing the exchange rate they could get away with , and being proud of that ( because it was tolerated that you could use a slightly higher exchange rate to compensate the fact that your bank add fees when you pay in foreign country ) .You may argue that that was because it was my own company , but I also worked for other people and never ever did any sort of reimbursement fee abuse.And , while I 've seen people abusing , I 've also seen a lot of people deeply honest.So , no , it is not because you can take company furniture to your home that you should .
It is not because you can come late and leave early that you should .
It is not because you can do personal web surfing at work that you should .
It is not because you can telecommute and slack off that you should.Lately , I 've seen this " you are stupid if you do n't abuse the system " mentally creeping in higher and higher levels of the society due to the fact that we blindly reward success without regard to any other metric .
I believe that it is the root of most of the world problems.It is not because you are given the power to wreck the world economy for you profit and get away with it that you should .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I have moderated this thread, so my mod will be lost, but I just can't avoid replying.
If that's trolling, well done :-)&gt; You are given the power to abuse something and you think nobody will notice....so you doNo, you don't.I've been in the power of abusing for years, and I have never done it.
It never even crossed my mind.
When I had my own company I had countless opportunity to slightly (or grossly) abuse, and never did.
I never ever had the company reimburse stuff like my subway tickets, or meals that weren't clearly business meals (ie: with prospects or customers).I've seen a lot of people abusing the system for years and years.
We had expenses in euros, but reimbursements in pounds, and I could see people, working for me, that were carefully choosing the exchange rate they could get away with, and being proud of that (because it was tolerated that you could use a slightly higher exchange rate to compensate the fact that your bank add fees when you pay in foreign country).You may argue that that was because it was my own company, but I also worked for other people and never ever did any sort of reimbursement fee abuse.And, while I've seen people abusing, I've also seen a lot of people deeply honest.So, no, it is not because you can take company furniture to your home that you should.
It is not because you can come late and leave early that you should.
It is not because you can do personal web surfing at work that you should.
It is not because you can telecommute and slack off that you should.Lately, I've seen this "you are stupid if you don't abuse the system" mentally creeping in higher and higher levels of the society due to the fact that we blindly reward success without regard to any other metric.
I believe that it is the root of most of the world problems.It is not because you are given the power to wreck the world economy for you profit and get away with it that you should.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387515</id>
	<title>Re:Hacker target?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245413160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's referring to the Guardian's addled plot to sway the voters of Clark County, OH and thus help John Kerry during the 2004 election. See <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2109217/" title="slate.com" rel="nofollow">Dear Limey Assholes</a> [slate.com]. Still an incongruous connection the GP is making but there's the background.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's referring to the Guardian 's addled plot to sway the voters of Clark County , OH and thus help John Kerry during the 2004 election .
See Dear Limey Assholes [ slate.com ] .
Still an incongruous connection the GP is making but there 's the background .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's referring to the Guardian's addled plot to sway the voters of Clark County, OH and thus help John Kerry during the 2004 election.
See Dear Limey Assholes [slate.com].
Still an incongruous connection the GP is making but there's the background.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390419</id>
	<title>Re:I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245428220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are only speak for yourself, but even so: fuck them and fuck you.  Pathetic, weak-minded, "it's only a little thing, everyone else does it" scum like you cause a vast majority of the low grade misery on this planet.  You know who you are, legion or otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are only speak for yourself , but even so : fuck them and fuck you .
Pathetic , weak-minded , " it 's only a little thing , everyone else does it " scum like you cause a vast majority of the low grade misery on this planet .
You know who you are , legion or otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are only speak for yourself, but even so: fuck them and fuck you.
Pathetic, weak-minded, "it's only a little thing, everyone else does it" scum like you cause a vast majority of the low grade misery on this planet.
You know who you are, legion or otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387941</id>
	<title>Re:Why TF doesn't it happen in US?</title>
	<author>crimperman</author>
	<datestamp>1245417060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The Daily Mail: Right wing christian crap...</p><p>these days it's probably more accurate to say Right-wing, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle\_class#Middle\_England" title="wikipedia.org">Middle-england</a> [wikipedia.org] crap. The rest is spot-on though. And if you're going to say the Daily mail, Telegraph etc are right-wing, you should probably point out that the Grauniad is generally left-wing.</p><p>&gt; The People: Apparently still running. First UK paper to be printed in colour...</p><p>I thought that was Eddie Shah's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Today\_(UK\_newspaper)" title="wikipedia.org">Today</a> [wikipedia.org] in the 80s</p><p>Oh and you forgot</p><p>The Daily Express: More Right-wing, Middle-england crap. Obsessed with Diana, Princess of Wales - seems to be outraged about something on a daily basis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The Daily Mail : Right wing christian crap...these days it 's probably more accurate to say Right-wing , Middle-england [ wikipedia.org ] crap .
The rest is spot-on though .
And if you 're going to say the Daily mail , Telegraph etc are right-wing , you should probably point out that the Grauniad is generally left-wing. &gt; The People : Apparently still running .
First UK paper to be printed in colour...I thought that was Eddie Shah 's Today [ wikipedia.org ] in the 80sOh and you forgotThe Daily Express : More Right-wing , Middle-england crap .
Obsessed with Diana , Princess of Wales - seems to be outraged about something on a daily basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The Daily Mail: Right wing christian crap...these days it's probably more accurate to say Right-wing, Middle-england [wikipedia.org] crap.
The rest is spot-on though.
And if you're going to say the Daily mail, Telegraph etc are right-wing, you should probably point out that the Grauniad is generally left-wing.&gt; The People: Apparently still running.
First UK paper to be printed in colour...I thought that was Eddie Shah's Today [wikipedia.org] in the 80sOh and you forgotThe Daily Express: More Right-wing, Middle-england crap.
Obsessed with Diana, Princess of Wales - seems to be outraged about something on a daily basis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387315</id>
	<title>Re:Hacker target?</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1245410640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the hell does Bush have to do with this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell does Bush have to do with this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell does Bush have to do with this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28388461</id>
	<title>Re:But will it work?</title>
	<author>gnieboer</author>
	<datestamp>1245420060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It'll be an interesting experiment to see how much investigative work the newspaper can get for free from the public.<br>I compare this to the SETI@Home... see how much people are willing to donate their spare "CPU cycles" (free time) to do a bunch of drudgery work for a newspaper.<br>Personally I think we'll be quite surprised to see the enthusiasm with which people will want to work for free just on the chance to be the one to find the golden nugget of info.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'll be an interesting experiment to see how much investigative work the newspaper can get for free from the public.I compare this to the SETI @ Home... see how much people are willing to donate their spare " CPU cycles " ( free time ) to do a bunch of drudgery work for a newspaper.Personally I think we 'll be quite surprised to see the enthusiasm with which people will want to work for free just on the chance to be the one to find the golden nugget of info .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'll be an interesting experiment to see how much investigative work the newspaper can get for free from the public.I compare this to the SETI@Home... see how much people are willing to donate their spare "CPU cycles" (free time) to do a bunch of drudgery work for a newspaper.Personally I think we'll be quite surprised to see the enthusiasm with which people will want to work for free just on the chance to be the one to find the golden nugget of info.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387931</id>
	<title>Re:Shameless Yes, Minister quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245417000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes Minister, although a good version, was not the original.</p><p>That joke was doing the rounds many years before Yes Minister was aired.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes Minister , although a good version , was not the original.That joke was doing the rounds many years before Yes Minister was aired .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes Minister, although a good version, was not the original.That joke was doing the rounds many years before Yes Minister was aired.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28389141</id>
	<title>Re:Power to the people!</title>
	<author>Richard\_at\_work</author>
	<datestamp>1245423000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Guardian didn't make the comment about the duck house - that was the Telegraph, who managed to get hold of the complete claims database uncensored months ago.  They also mentioned it was claimed for but the claim was rejected.  That doesn't stop the claim being wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Guardian did n't make the comment about the duck house - that was the Telegraph , who managed to get hold of the complete claims database uncensored months ago .
They also mentioned it was claimed for but the claim was rejected .
That does n't stop the claim being wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Guardian didn't make the comment about the duck house - that was the Telegraph, who managed to get hold of the complete claims database uncensored months ago.
They also mentioned it was claimed for but the claim was rejected.
That doesn't stop the claim being wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390815</id>
	<title>Re:Why TF doesn't it happen in US?</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1245430020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot the Daily Express</p><p>A wannabe Daily Mail which is obsessed with House Prices, Princess Diana and Madeline McCann.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot the Daily ExpressA wannabe Daily Mail which is obsessed with House Prices , Princess Diana and Madeline McCann .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot the Daily ExpressA wannabe Daily Mail which is obsessed with House Prices, Princess Diana and Madeline McCann.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387491</id>
	<title>Re:I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245412800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Flame away but i probably would have.</p></div><p>Would have what?
</p><p>Claimed 39p for a Mars Bar - or continued to claim hundreds of pounds a month for interest on a mortgage that no longer existed? Claimed that you needed to subscribe to such-and-such magazine as part of your job, or played complex second home/primary residence "flipping" shenanigans in order to get both nicely tricked out at taxpayers' expense - but then tell a different story to the revenue when it came to capital gains tax?

</p><p>Thing is, when the Telegraph got their original leaked, uncensored information, they did a <i>masterful</i> job of padding out the really serious stuff with lots of trivia. What you say is true of much of the trivia - if you can claim it, why not? But the big money stuff is not excusable.

</p><p>Bear in mind that this is the same administration that is putting out the "No Ifs, No Buts" adverts telling the "little people" claiming state benefit exactly how hard the book will be thrown at them if they are not scrupulously honest.

</p><p>The annoying thing is that the fallout from this is probably going to be a bureaucracy-laden system that costs the taxpayers 100 quid for every 50 quid claimed and lots of silly regulations that will trickle down to everybody else who ever claims expenses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flame away but i probably would have.Would have what ?
Claimed 39p for a Mars Bar - or continued to claim hundreds of pounds a month for interest on a mortgage that no longer existed ?
Claimed that you needed to subscribe to such-and-such magazine as part of your job , or played complex second home/primary residence " flipping " shenanigans in order to get both nicely tricked out at taxpayers ' expense - but then tell a different story to the revenue when it came to capital gains tax ?
Thing is , when the Telegraph got their original leaked , uncensored information , they did a masterful job of padding out the really serious stuff with lots of trivia .
What you say is true of much of the trivia - if you can claim it , why not ?
But the big money stuff is not excusable .
Bear in mind that this is the same administration that is putting out the " No Ifs , No Buts " adverts telling the " little people " claiming state benefit exactly how hard the book will be thrown at them if they are not scrupulously honest .
The annoying thing is that the fallout from this is probably going to be a bureaucracy-laden system that costs the taxpayers 100 quid for every 50 quid claimed and lots of silly regulations that will trickle down to everybody else who ever claims expenses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flame away but i probably would have.Would have what?
Claimed 39p for a Mars Bar - or continued to claim hundreds of pounds a month for interest on a mortgage that no longer existed?
Claimed that you needed to subscribe to such-and-such magazine as part of your job, or played complex second home/primary residence "flipping" shenanigans in order to get both nicely tricked out at taxpayers' expense - but then tell a different story to the revenue when it came to capital gains tax?
Thing is, when the Telegraph got their original leaked, uncensored information, they did a masterful job of padding out the really serious stuff with lots of trivia.
What you say is true of much of the trivia - if you can claim it, why not?
But the big money stuff is not excusable.
Bear in mind that this is the same administration that is putting out the "No Ifs, No Buts" adverts telling the "little people" claiming state benefit exactly how hard the book will be thrown at them if they are not scrupulously honest.
The annoying thing is that the fallout from this is probably going to be a bureaucracy-laden system that costs the taxpayers 100 quid for every 50 quid claimed and lots of silly regulations that will trickle down to everybody else who ever claims expenses.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387347</id>
	<title>Re:I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>SquirrelsUnite</author>
	<datestamp>1245410940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But I'm pretty sure that almost ANYONE in their shoes would have done the same...it's called the human condition.  You are given the power to abuse something and you think nobody will notice....so you do.  Flame away but i probably would have.</p></div><p>I doubt almost everybody, but yeah a lot of people would. Which just makes it even more important not to let them get away with it. So that you and everybody else will think twice in the same situation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I 'm pretty sure that almost ANYONE in their shoes would have done the same...it 's called the human condition .
You are given the power to abuse something and you think nobody will notice....so you do .
Flame away but i probably would have.I doubt almost everybody , but yeah a lot of people would .
Which just makes it even more important not to let them get away with it .
So that you and everybody else will think twice in the same situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I'm pretty sure that almost ANYONE in their shoes would have done the same...it's called the human condition.
You are given the power to abuse something and you think nobody will notice....so you do.
Flame away but i probably would have.I doubt almost everybody, but yeah a lot of people would.
Which just makes it even more important not to let them get away with it.
So that you and everybody else will think twice in the same situation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387065</id>
	<title>Re:I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>newcastlejon</author>
	<datestamp>1245407820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can honestly say I wouldn't. I became a civil servant because *gasp* I actually enjoy being of service to others. I heartily recommend it; the pay is decent and you get the Queen's birthday off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can honestly say I would n't .
I became a civil servant because * gasp * I actually enjoy being of service to others .
I heartily recommend it ; the pay is decent and you get the Queen 's birthday off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can honestly say I wouldn't.
I became a civil servant because *gasp* I actually enjoy being of service to others.
I heartily recommend it; the pay is decent and you get the Queen's birthday off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390359</id>
	<title>Re:Why TF doesn't it happen in US?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245427860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's out there, everywhere. You're just not reading it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's out there , everywhere .
You 're just not reading it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's out there, everywhere.
You're just not reading it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28393675</id>
	<title>Re:Power to the people!</title>
	<author>altek</author>
	<datestamp>1245441780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can  you please elaborate?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you please elaborate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can  you please elaborate?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390625</id>
	<title>Re:I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1245429120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>What I do not get, is why the British don't just pay the MPs a fixed amount for the expense of maintaining an extra home. </i>
</p><p>What I do not get, is why the public are paying for an extra home in the first place.  Even more so for <b>buyng</b> a second home vs renting one.
</p><p> <i>I have heard about this case, only from our local reporters (a live in Denmark, Scandinavia) and they talked of different remedies proposed. And all I could here, was more and more bureaucracy.</i>
</p><p>Here's a simple solution: don't pay for a second home at all.  If politicians need somewhere to stay during work-related trips, put them up in a damn hotel for the duration.  Alternatively, for places where large numbers of politicians frequently gather (ie: parliament) take out some long-term leases on nearby serviced apartments.
</p><p>I cannot even begin to comprehend the thinking behind the idea that taxpayers should be funding anyone's second home.  I find it incomprehensible that everyone is arguing about the semantics of first vs second home, without even taking a second to think about the fundamental principle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do not get , is why the British do n't just pay the MPs a fixed amount for the expense of maintaining an extra home .
What I do not get , is why the public are paying for an extra home in the first place .
Even more so for buyng a second home vs renting one .
I have heard about this case , only from our local reporters ( a live in Denmark , Scandinavia ) and they talked of different remedies proposed .
And all I could here , was more and more bureaucracy .
Here 's a simple solution : do n't pay for a second home at all .
If politicians need somewhere to stay during work-related trips , put them up in a damn hotel for the duration .
Alternatively , for places where large numbers of politicians frequently gather ( ie : parliament ) take out some long-term leases on nearby serviced apartments .
I can not even begin to comprehend the thinking behind the idea that taxpayers should be funding anyone 's second home .
I find it incomprehensible that everyone is arguing about the semantics of first vs second home , without even taking a second to think about the fundamental principle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> What I do not get, is why the British don't just pay the MPs a fixed amount for the expense of maintaining an extra home.
What I do not get, is why the public are paying for an extra home in the first place.
Even more so for buyng a second home vs renting one.
I have heard about this case, only from our local reporters (a live in Denmark, Scandinavia) and they talked of different remedies proposed.
And all I could here, was more and more bureaucracy.
Here's a simple solution: don't pay for a second home at all.
If politicians need somewhere to stay during work-related trips, put them up in a damn hotel for the duration.
Alternatively, for places where large numbers of politicians frequently gather (ie: parliament) take out some long-term leases on nearby serviced apartments.
I cannot even begin to comprehend the thinking behind the idea that taxpayers should be funding anyone's second home.
I find it incomprehensible that everyone is arguing about the semantics of first vs second home, without even taking a second to think about the fundamental principle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28396929</id>
	<title>Re:I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245411480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not justifying any of the politicians' fiddling by any means, but there is a valid reasoning behind the second homes:</p><p>Politicians have to be at London some of the time to attend Parliament and make laws, etc. But they also have to be in their constituency some of the time as well, to listen to the complaints of the people they are supposed to represent. And some constituencies are hundreds of miles away from London so commuting isn't an option.</p><p>Thus they usually have a main home in their constituency and a smaller flat or something in central London.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not justifying any of the politicians ' fiddling by any means , but there is a valid reasoning behind the second homes : Politicians have to be at London some of the time to attend Parliament and make laws , etc .
But they also have to be in their constituency some of the time as well , to listen to the complaints of the people they are supposed to represent .
And some constituencies are hundreds of miles away from London so commuting is n't an option.Thus they usually have a main home in their constituency and a smaller flat or something in central London .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not justifying any of the politicians' fiddling by any means, but there is a valid reasoning behind the second homes:Politicians have to be at London some of the time to attend Parliament and make laws, etc.
But they also have to be in their constituency some of the time as well, to listen to the complaints of the people they are supposed to represent.
And some constituencies are hundreds of miles away from London so commuting isn't an option.Thus they usually have a main home in their constituency and a smaller flat or something in central London.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387429</id>
	<title>Re:I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1245411960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's more that in certain circles it became so endemic that people thought it was normal and allowed.</p><p>In a sense, people felt as if the expenses system was a perk to go with their salary - like a company car or a healthcare package.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's more that in certain circles it became so endemic that people thought it was normal and allowed.In a sense , people felt as if the expenses system was a perk to go with their salary - like a company car or a healthcare package .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's more that in certain circles it became so endemic that people thought it was normal and allowed.In a sense, people felt as if the expenses system was a perk to go with their salary - like a company car or a healthcare package.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387545</id>
	<title>Re:But will it work?</title>
	<author>NinjaCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1245413400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People are fizzing mad about this.  And I guess people will look for their own MP and look for what they spent money on rather than start at document 1 and increment. Such a neat example of parallelism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People are fizzing mad about this .
And I guess people will look for their own MP and look for what they spent money on rather than start at document 1 and increment .
Such a neat example of parallelism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are fizzing mad about this.
And I guess people will look for their own MP and look for what they spent money on rather than start at document 1 and increment.
Such a neat example of parallelism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387001</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390413</id>
	<title>Re:I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245428160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good luck changing the fact that many people don't have an ideal level of integrity.  While the OP may seem like it erasing any moral culpability, the only relevant question should be how we can prevent abuses, and merely asking everyone to have absolute integrity isn't likely to help.  Reminds me of blaming the recent financial crisis on the fact that many bankers were greedy.  Good luck trying to change that . . .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good luck changing the fact that many people do n't have an ideal level of integrity .
While the OP may seem like it erasing any moral culpability , the only relevant question should be how we can prevent abuses , and merely asking everyone to have absolute integrity is n't likely to help .
Reminds me of blaming the recent financial crisis on the fact that many bankers were greedy .
Good luck trying to change that .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good luck changing the fact that many people don't have an ideal level of integrity.
While the OP may seem like it erasing any moral culpability, the only relevant question should be how we can prevent abuses, and merely asking everyone to have absolute integrity isn't likely to help.
Reminds me of blaming the recent financial crisis on the fact that many bankers were greedy.
Good luck trying to change that .
. .</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28388647</id>
	<title>Newspaper - "Yes Minister"</title>
	<author>bmsleight</author>
	<datestamp>1245420900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>the best explanation of newspapers was given in "Yes Minister"<blockquote><div><p>The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country<br>
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country<br>
The Times is read by people who actually do run the country<br>
the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country<br>
the Financial Times is read by people who own the country<br>
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country<br>
The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is<br>
Sun readers don&#226;(TM)t care who runs the country, as long as she&#226;(TM)s got big tits</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the best explanation of newspapers was given in " Yes Minister " The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country The Times is read by people who actually do run the country the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country the Financial Times is read by people who own the country The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is Sun readers don   ( TM ) t care who runs the country , as long as she   ( TM ) s got big tits</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the best explanation of newspapers was given in "Yes Minister"The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country
The Times is read by people who actually do run the country
the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country
the Financial Times is read by people who own the country
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country
The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is
Sun readers donâ(TM)t care who runs the country, as long as sheâ(TM)s got big tits

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390847</id>
	<title>Re:Duck Islands</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245430200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of the things you mentioned are benign... they do nothing.  The candy in that candy bowl at a restaurant, or the 'take a penny, leave a penny' jar are there for the sole purpose of being taken.</p><p>Spending taxpayer money on things that aren't even remotely related to your job... that's like walking down the street and forcing everyone you come across... against their will... to give you a dollar so you can buy yourself an ivory backscratcher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of the things you mentioned are benign... they do nothing .
The candy in that candy bowl at a restaurant , or the 'take a penny , leave a penny ' jar are there for the sole purpose of being taken.Spending taxpayer money on things that are n't even remotely related to your job... that 's like walking down the street and forcing everyone you come across... against their will... to give you a dollar so you can buy yourself an ivory backscratcher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of the things you mentioned are benign... they do nothing.
The candy in that candy bowl at a restaurant, or the 'take a penny, leave a penny' jar are there for the sole purpose of being taken.Spending taxpayer money on things that aren't even remotely related to your job... that's like walking down the street and forcing everyone you come across... against their will... to give you a dollar so you can buy yourself an ivory backscratcher.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386889</id>
	<title>Ask your sister...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245405720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...if she masturbates, then report back here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...if she masturbates , then report back here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...if she masturbates, then report back here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387111</id>
	<title>Re:Power to the people!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245408420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hardly. This is a set of expenses paid for by the taxpayers, and we have also had to pay to have it censored before it was released. Ostensibly this was for privacy, but it was more likely to hide the shame of our MPs. Some of the most unforgivable expenses-laundering (flipping the status of primary and secondary residences to avoid capital gains tax and to gain a property portfolio at our expense) is hidden in the official release. In the meantime the Telegraph got a hold of the unredacted claims a month before now through a leak.</p><p>Also, the Guardian's claim that there's a receipt for a duck-house in there is false, as that claim was rejected and no rejected claims have been released officially. Arguably this is no great omission, but to see what MPs have tried and failed to claim for illuminates their sense of entitlement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hardly .
This is a set of expenses paid for by the taxpayers , and we have also had to pay to have it censored before it was released .
Ostensibly this was for privacy , but it was more likely to hide the shame of our MPs .
Some of the most unforgivable expenses-laundering ( flipping the status of primary and secondary residences to avoid capital gains tax and to gain a property portfolio at our expense ) is hidden in the official release .
In the meantime the Telegraph got a hold of the unredacted claims a month before now through a leak.Also , the Guardian 's claim that there 's a receipt for a duck-house in there is false , as that claim was rejected and no rejected claims have been released officially .
Arguably this is no great omission , but to see what MPs have tried and failed to claim for illuminates their sense of entitlement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hardly.
This is a set of expenses paid for by the taxpayers, and we have also had to pay to have it censored before it was released.
Ostensibly this was for privacy, but it was more likely to hide the shame of our MPs.
Some of the most unforgivable expenses-laundering (flipping the status of primary and secondary residences to avoid capital gains tax and to gain a property portfolio at our expense) is hidden in the official release.
In the meantime the Telegraph got a hold of the unredacted claims a month before now through a leak.Also, the Guardian's claim that there's a receipt for a duck-house in there is false, as that claim was rejected and no rejected claims have been released officially.
Arguably this is no great omission, but to see what MPs have tried and failed to claim for illuminates their sense of entitlement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387097</id>
	<title>Shameless Yes, Minister quote</title>
	<author>newcastlejon</author>
	<datestamp>1245408240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Hacker:</b> Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it already is.</p><p> <b>Sir Humphrey:</b> Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?</p><p> <b>Bernard:</b> Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.</p></div><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M for those who'd like to see the original</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hacker : Do n't tell me about the press .
I know exactly who reads the papers : the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country ; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country ; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country ; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country ; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country ; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country ; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it already is .
Sir Humphrey : Prime Minister , what about the people who read The Sun ?
Bernard : Sun readers do n't care who runs the country , as long as she 's got big tits.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = DGscoaUWW2M for those who 'd like to see the original</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Hacker: Don't tell me about the press.
I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it already is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M for those who'd like to see the original
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28388873</id>
	<title>Who designed that site?</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1245421920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A page reload for every mouse click and scroll down every time because of all the useless crap at the top of the page? They'd get ten times more results if they employed somebody who know basic HTML 3.0 instead of all this new-fangled stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A page reload for every mouse click and scroll down every time because of all the useless crap at the top of the page ?
They 'd get ten times more results if they employed somebody who know basic HTML 3.0 instead of all this new-fangled stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A page reload for every mouse click and scroll down every time because of all the useless crap at the top of the page?
They'd get ten times more results if they employed somebody who know basic HTML 3.0 instead of all this new-fangled stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386959</id>
	<title>Why TF doesn't it happen in US?</title>
	<author>freedom\_india</author>
	<datestamp>1245406680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't our corporate controlled, drug-addled newspapers act like their British counterparts?<br>Ours is a direct republic, so in theory, our press must be more active in exposing the illegal, false and corrupt expense accounts of the numerous Ted Stevens clones that walk the same halls that Lincoln and Jackson walked.<br>Why don't our media have a daily expose show at 7 PM detailing the latest claims our diseased congressmen and senators claim as expenses?<br>British press is so Cool!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't our corporate controlled , drug-addled newspapers act like their British counterparts ? Ours is a direct republic , so in theory , our press must be more active in exposing the illegal , false and corrupt expense accounts of the numerous Ted Stevens clones that walk the same halls that Lincoln and Jackson walked.Why do n't our media have a daily expose show at 7 PM detailing the latest claims our diseased congressmen and senators claim as expenses ? British press is so Cool !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't our corporate controlled, drug-addled newspapers act like their British counterparts?Ours is a direct republic, so in theory, our press must be more active in exposing the illegal, false and corrupt expense accounts of the numerous Ted Stevens clones that walk the same halls that Lincoln and Jackson walked.Why don't our media have a daily expose show at 7 PM detailing the latest claims our diseased congressmen and senators claim as expenses?British press is so Cool!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855</id>
	<title>I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>ammit</author>
	<datestamp>1245405360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>But I'm pretty sure that almost ANYONE in their shoes would have done the same...it's called the human condition.  You are given the power to abuse something and you think nobody will notice....so you do.  Flame away but i probably would have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I 'm pretty sure that almost ANYONE in their shoes would have done the same...it 's called the human condition .
You are given the power to abuse something and you think nobody will notice....so you do .
Flame away but i probably would have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I'm pretty sure that almost ANYONE in their shoes would have done the same...it's called the human condition.
You are given the power to abuse something and you think nobody will notice....so you do.
Flame away but i probably would have.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386891</id>
	<title>Re:I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1245405720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is exactly the reason why campaign contributions and contributors should be made public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly the reason why campaign contributions and contributors should be made public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly the reason why campaign contributions and contributors should be made public.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387377</id>
	<title>Re:Duck Islands</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1245411540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>As it happens though the claim for the duck island does not appear in the official expenses data as it's blacked out along with, I would guess, almost anything else likely to cause embarrassment for the MP.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p> How about because it was denied reimbursement? The article links to specifically states that.</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>Apparently once the fees office had blacked out the bits they didn't think the public should see the MPs had several months to look at their own claims and recommend any other sections they didn't think should be public so when you look at the actual claims, and some MPs are much worse than others, there is an awful lot you can't see.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p> I bet your sorry that all those people in your country was making fun of the US idiots who were placing digital lines over the information instead of removing it only to be discovered later by someone simply removing the black line.. at least then your government offices may have done the same thing and you would know for sure instead of just guessing about it and acting as if it actually happened. But hey, now that there is less information, it just provers your contempt even more right?</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>What really pisses me off is the string of MPs saying</i></p><p><i>"Well my claim was completely within the rules and I have done nothing wrong however I now realise the rules were horribly wrong and fundamentally flawed so what we need to do is change the rules to make them stricter."</i></p><p><i>No ! What you need to do is behave in an honest and honourable fashion and not try to screw the system for as much as you think you can get away with.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p> Following the rules is an honorable and honest fashion. If you a bowl of candy that said take one, you wouldn't consider yourself a thief if you took one would you? How about those have a penny take a penny trays that are helpful in keeping the small change out of your pocket? Surely you wouldn't want to stop at a stop sign while waiting for the right of way in traffic and get a ticket because you were blocking trafic behind you.</p><p>Whatever the rules say, is the measure of honesty and honorable. You can't expect anyone to follow unwritten rules that meet your ideals and expectations. Retrospect, or hindsight, often allows us to reflect on things in ways not possible until after other people's reactions. The first clue to this is where the MP says "I know realize". You see, without the public outrage or even your outrage, they didn't know that a set of rules in place before they even took office and a set of practices just as old, was offensive to many people. Now he knows, and now he realizes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As it happens though the claim for the duck island does not appear in the official expenses data as it 's blacked out along with , I would guess , almost anything else likely to cause embarrassment for the MP .
How about because it was denied reimbursement ?
The article links to specifically states that .
Apparently once the fees office had blacked out the bits they did n't think the public should see the MPs had several months to look at their own claims and recommend any other sections they did n't think should be public so when you look at the actual claims , and some MPs are much worse than others , there is an awful lot you ca n't see .
I bet your sorry that all those people in your country was making fun of the US idiots who were placing digital lines over the information instead of removing it only to be discovered later by someone simply removing the black line.. at least then your government offices may have done the same thing and you would know for sure instead of just guessing about it and acting as if it actually happened .
But hey , now that there is less information , it just provers your contempt even more right ?
What really pisses me off is the string of MPs saying " Well my claim was completely within the rules and I have done nothing wrong however I now realise the rules were horribly wrong and fundamentally flawed so what we need to do is change the rules to make them stricter .
" No !
What you need to do is behave in an honest and honourable fashion and not try to screw the system for as much as you think you can get away with .
Following the rules is an honorable and honest fashion .
If you a bowl of candy that said take one , you would n't consider yourself a thief if you took one would you ?
How about those have a penny take a penny trays that are helpful in keeping the small change out of your pocket ?
Surely you would n't want to stop at a stop sign while waiting for the right of way in traffic and get a ticket because you were blocking trafic behind you.Whatever the rules say , is the measure of honesty and honorable .
You ca n't expect anyone to follow unwritten rules that meet your ideals and expectations .
Retrospect , or hindsight , often allows us to reflect on things in ways not possible until after other people 's reactions .
The first clue to this is where the MP says " I know realize " .
You see , without the public outrage or even your outrage , they did n't know that a set of rules in place before they even took office and a set of practices just as old , was offensive to many people .
Now he knows , and now he realizes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> As it happens though the claim for the duck island does not appear in the official expenses data as it's blacked out along with, I would guess, almost anything else likely to cause embarrassment for the MP.
How about because it was denied reimbursement?
The article links to specifically states that.
Apparently once the fees office had blacked out the bits they didn't think the public should see the MPs had several months to look at their own claims and recommend any other sections they didn't think should be public so when you look at the actual claims, and some MPs are much worse than others, there is an awful lot you can't see.
I bet your sorry that all those people in your country was making fun of the US idiots who were placing digital lines over the information instead of removing it only to be discovered later by someone simply removing the black line.. at least then your government offices may have done the same thing and you would know for sure instead of just guessing about it and acting as if it actually happened.
But hey, now that there is less information, it just provers your contempt even more right?
What really pisses me off is the string of MPs saying"Well my claim was completely within the rules and I have done nothing wrong however I now realise the rules were horribly wrong and fundamentally flawed so what we need to do is change the rules to make them stricter.
"No !
What you need to do is behave in an honest and honourable fashion and not try to screw the system for as much as you think you can get away with.
Following the rules is an honorable and honest fashion.
If you a bowl of candy that said take one, you wouldn't consider yourself a thief if you took one would you?
How about those have a penny take a penny trays that are helpful in keeping the small change out of your pocket?
Surely you wouldn't want to stop at a stop sign while waiting for the right of way in traffic and get a ticket because you were blocking trafic behind you.Whatever the rules say, is the measure of honesty and honorable.
You can't expect anyone to follow unwritten rules that meet your ideals and expectations.
Retrospect, or hindsight, often allows us to reflect on things in ways not possible until after other people's reactions.
The first clue to this is where the MP says "I know realize".
You see, without the public outrage or even your outrage, they didn't know that a set of rules in place before they even took office and a set of practices just as old, was offensive to many people.
Now he knows, and now he realizes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387807</id>
	<title>Guardian looking for attention</title>
	<author>jonnyt886</author>
	<datestamp>1245416160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is just an attempt by the Guardian to steal the thunder of the Daily Telegraph, who have been at the centre of this by publishing uncensored figures.

<br> <br>
And what's the point of 'investigating' this stuff when we know the Telegraph has all the answers? Well, I'm sure the guys at the Guardian will publish the results of their so-called 'investigations' when the Telegraph release the rest of their data...</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just an attempt by the Guardian to steal the thunder of the Daily Telegraph , who have been at the centre of this by publishing uncensored figures .
And what 's the point of 'investigating ' this stuff when we know the Telegraph has all the answers ?
Well , I 'm sure the guys at the Guardian will publish the results of their so-called 'investigations ' when the Telegraph release the rest of their data.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just an attempt by the Guardian to steal the thunder of the Daily Telegraph, who have been at the centre of this by publishing uncensored figures.
And what's the point of 'investigating' this stuff when we know the Telegraph has all the answers?
Well, I'm sure the guys at the Guardian will publish the results of their so-called 'investigations' when the Telegraph release the rest of their data...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387011</id>
	<title>Re:I know this isn't the point....</title>
	<author>routerl</author>
	<datestamp>1245407220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But I'm pretty sure that almost ANYONE in their shoes would have done the same...it's called the human condition.  You are given the power to abuse something and you think nobody will notice....so you do.  Flame away but i probably would have.</p></div><p>Categorize this as flaming if you wish, but that is exactly the kind of reasoning unscrupulous people use to justify continuing violation of moral and legal conventions. Other variations include but are not limited to "don't hate the player, hate the game" and "screw or be screwed". All amount to the same thing, and all are inexcusable. Believe it or not, the majority of people entrusted with power over the lives of others live up to the minimal expectation that this trust will not be broken. The word that describes this is integrity, and no amount of fallacious reasoning will erase the fact that you lack it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I 'm pretty sure that almost ANYONE in their shoes would have done the same...it 's called the human condition .
You are given the power to abuse something and you think nobody will notice....so you do .
Flame away but i probably would have.Categorize this as flaming if you wish , but that is exactly the kind of reasoning unscrupulous people use to justify continuing violation of moral and legal conventions .
Other variations include but are not limited to " do n't hate the player , hate the game " and " screw or be screwed " .
All amount to the same thing , and all are inexcusable .
Believe it or not , the majority of people entrusted with power over the lives of others live up to the minimal expectation that this trust will not be broken .
The word that describes this is integrity , and no amount of fallacious reasoning will erase the fact that you lack it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I'm pretty sure that almost ANYONE in their shoes would have done the same...it's called the human condition.
You are given the power to abuse something and you think nobody will notice....so you do.
Flame away but i probably would have.Categorize this as flaming if you wish, but that is exactly the kind of reasoning unscrupulous people use to justify continuing violation of moral and legal conventions.
Other variations include but are not limited to "don't hate the player, hate the game" and "screw or be screwed".
All amount to the same thing, and all are inexcusable.
Believe it or not, the majority of people entrusted with power over the lives of others live up to the minimal expectation that this trust will not be broken.
The word that describes this is integrity, and no amount of fallacious reasoning will erase the fact that you lack it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28393689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28393675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28389141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28400039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28388647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28389619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28402297
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28398341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28396929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28400127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28393929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28398089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28388461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28389875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390001
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28392787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28388235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28394105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0152259_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0152259.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390395
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0152259.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387055
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0152259.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28388215
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0152259.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387483
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390815
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387769
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387771
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28394105
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387971
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387727
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28388235
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390183
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387653
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28388647
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387941
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0152259.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387001
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28388461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387287
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0152259.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387315
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387515
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0152259.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28400039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28393689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387549
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390625
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28393929
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28400127
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28396929
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28398341
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28402297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387011
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390001
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387631
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390105
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387029
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28392787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28389619
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0152259.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28398089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387111
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28389141
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28389875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28393675
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0152259.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387021
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0152259.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386889
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0152259.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387377
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390397
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28390847
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0152259.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28386877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387639
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0152259.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0152259.28387931
</commentlist>
</conversation>
