<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_22_1447208</id>
	<title>FTC To Monitor Blogs For Paid Claims & Reviews</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1245686160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://psoug.org/" rel="nofollow">PL/SQL Guy</a> writes <i>"Many bloggers have accepted perks such as free laptops, trips to Europe, $500 gift cards or even thousands of dollars for a 200-word post. Bloggers vary in how they disclose such freebies, if they do so at all. But now <a href="http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090621/ap\_on\_hi\_te/us\_tec\_bloggers\_freebie\_disclosures">the Federal Trade Commission is paying attention</a>. New guidelines, expected to be approved late this summer with possible modifications, would clarify that the agency can go after bloggers &mdash; as well as the companies that compensate them &mdash; for any false claims or failure to disclose conflicts of interest. Bloggers complain that with FTC oversight, they'd be too worried about innocent posts getting them in trouble, because the common practice of posting a graphical ad or a link to an online retailer &mdash; and possibly getting commissions for any sales from it &mdash; would be enough to trigger oversight."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>PL/SQL Guy writes " Many bloggers have accepted perks such as free laptops , trips to Europe , $ 500 gift cards or even thousands of dollars for a 200-word post .
Bloggers vary in how they disclose such freebies , if they do so at all .
But now the Federal Trade Commission is paying attention .
New guidelines , expected to be approved late this summer with possible modifications , would clarify that the agency can go after bloggers    as well as the companies that compensate them    for any false claims or failure to disclose conflicts of interest .
Bloggers complain that with FTC oversight , they 'd be too worried about innocent posts getting them in trouble , because the common practice of posting a graphical ad or a link to an online retailer    and possibly getting commissions for any sales from it    would be enough to trigger oversight .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PL/SQL Guy writes "Many bloggers have accepted perks such as free laptops, trips to Europe, $500 gift cards or even thousands of dollars for a 200-word post.
Bloggers vary in how they disclose such freebies, if they do so at all.
But now the Federal Trade Commission is paying attention.
New guidelines, expected to be approved late this summer with possible modifications, would clarify that the agency can go after bloggers — as well as the companies that compensate them — for any false claims or failure to disclose conflicts of interest.
Bloggers complain that with FTC oversight, they'd be too worried about innocent posts getting them in trouble, because the common practice of posting a graphical ad or a link to an online retailer — and possibly getting commissions for any sales from it — would be enough to trigger oversight.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424813</id>
	<title>Get over it!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245694500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" Bloggers complain that with FTC oversight, they'd be too worried about innocent posts getting them in trouble, because the common practice of posting a graphical ad or a link to an online retailer -- and possibly getting commissions for any sales from it -- would be enough to trigger oversight."</p><p>So whats the problem?  Don't post adds or links for money.  Get over it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Bloggers complain that with FTC oversight , they 'd be too worried about innocent posts getting them in trouble , because the common practice of posting a graphical ad or a link to an online retailer -- and possibly getting commissions for any sales from it -- would be enough to trigger oversight .
" So whats the problem ?
Do n't post adds or links for money .
Get over it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" Bloggers complain that with FTC oversight, they'd be too worried about innocent posts getting them in trouble, because the common practice of posting a graphical ad or a link to an online retailer -- and possibly getting commissions for any sales from it -- would be enough to trigger oversight.
"So whats the problem?
Don't post adds or links for money.
Get over it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423765</id>
	<title>Re:Unfortunately - too many believe what is blogge</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245690900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>so I suppose requiring full disclosure or potential conflicts of interest is necessary</i></p><p>It is? It has not been a legal requirement before, as far as I know.</p><p>What is worst thing that can possibly happen if we don't pass new laws? People might take bad advice from someone they never should have trusted in the first place, and buy overpriced consumer crap that they don't need, and maybe be disappointed with it.</p><p>What's the worst thing that can possibly happen if we do pass new laws? People's legitimate opinions may be silenced on the mere accusation that they aren't disclosing everything that they should. A lot of these bloggers have very little keeping them going aside from personal interest, so even if they are doing everything 100\% ethically, an offhand accusation and a letter from a government agency will shut them up quickly. How long before these new laws are applied to public policy opinions, and they can silence underfunded opposition?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so I suppose requiring full disclosure or potential conflicts of interest is necessaryIt is ?
It has not been a legal requirement before , as far as I know.What is worst thing that can possibly happen if we do n't pass new laws ?
People might take bad advice from someone they never should have trusted in the first place , and buy overpriced consumer crap that they do n't need , and maybe be disappointed with it.What 's the worst thing that can possibly happen if we do pass new laws ?
People 's legitimate opinions may be silenced on the mere accusation that they are n't disclosing everything that they should .
A lot of these bloggers have very little keeping them going aside from personal interest , so even if they are doing everything 100 \ % ethically , an offhand accusation and a letter from a government agency will shut them up quickly .
How long before these new laws are applied to public policy opinions , and they can silence underfunded opposition ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so I suppose requiring full disclosure or potential conflicts of interest is necessaryIt is?
It has not been a legal requirement before, as far as I know.What is worst thing that can possibly happen if we don't pass new laws?
People might take bad advice from someone they never should have trusted in the first place, and buy overpriced consumer crap that they don't need, and maybe be disappointed with it.What's the worst thing that can possibly happen if we do pass new laws?
People's legitimate opinions may be silenced on the mere accusation that they aren't disclosing everything that they should.
A lot of these bloggers have very little keeping them going aside from personal interest, so even if they are doing everything 100\% ethically, an offhand accusation and a letter from a government agency will shut them up quickly.
How long before these new laws are applied to public policy opinions, and they can silence underfunded opposition?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424949</id>
	<title>Re:Conflicts of interest?</title>
	<author>Mr\_eX9</author>
	<datestamp>1245695040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not if you believe that consumers should be protected from misleading information.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not if you believe that consumers should be protected from misleading information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not if you believe that consumers should be protected from misleading information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424281</id>
	<title>... or summarized</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245692700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know why anyone believes what is written in a blog without first checking it out.</p></div><p>The next thing you know, some website will start "summarizing" news items, and hordes of people will believe them without first checking it out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know why anyone believes what is written in a blog without first checking it out.The next thing you know , some website will start " summarizing " news items , and hordes of people will believe them without first checking it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know why anyone believes what is written in a blog without first checking it out.The next thing you know, some website will start "summarizing" news items, and hordes of people will believe them without first checking it out.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28430075</id>
	<title>Re:stop crying</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1245669420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What conflicts of interest? Their only interest is making money. By any means. The content that comes out is completely irrelevant, if it does not affect this interest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What conflicts of interest ?
Their only interest is making money .
By any means .
The content that comes out is completely irrelevant , if it does not affect this interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What conflicts of interest?
Their only interest is making money.
By any means.
The content that comes out is completely irrelevant, if it does not affect this interest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423545</id>
	<title>Unfortunately - too many believe what is blogged</title>
	<author>Old97</author>
	<datestamp>1245690120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know why anyone believes what is written in a blog without first checking it out.  They're opinions given without any standards - professional, ethical or otherwise that apply.  On the other hand, people do tend to believe whatever is communicated in any medium - talk radio, television, the internet so I suppose requiring full disclosure or potential conflicts of interest is necessary.  So when will the FTC require all broadcast journalists and commentators to disclose their sources of income?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know why anyone believes what is written in a blog without first checking it out .
They 're opinions given without any standards - professional , ethical or otherwise that apply .
On the other hand , people do tend to believe whatever is communicated in any medium - talk radio , television , the internet so I suppose requiring full disclosure or potential conflicts of interest is necessary .
So when will the FTC require all broadcast journalists and commentators to disclose their sources of income ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know why anyone believes what is written in a blog without first checking it out.
They're opinions given without any standards - professional, ethical or otherwise that apply.
On the other hand, people do tend to believe whatever is communicated in any medium - talk radio, television, the internet so I suppose requiring full disclosure or potential conflicts of interest is necessary.
So when will the FTC require all broadcast journalists and commentators to disclose their sources of income?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28425759</id>
	<title>Double standard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245697740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I like this standard. I just wish it also applied to advertising dollars as a source of COI. Yes I'm talking about GameSpot. What bloggers receive to astroturf is peanuts in comparison to what the review sites receive for the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I like this standard .
I just wish it also applied to advertising dollars as a source of COI .
Yes I 'm talking about GameSpot .
What bloggers receive to astroturf is peanuts in comparison to what the review sites receive for the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I like this standard.
I just wish it also applied to advertising dollars as a source of COI.
Yes I'm talking about GameSpot.
What bloggers receive to astroturf is peanuts in comparison to what the review sites receive for the same thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424991</id>
	<title>Re:Conflicts of interest?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245695160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a law not against conflict of interest but if it is disclosed or not which is already in the law for certain things including advertising. People are quite free to say what they wish as long as they tell people if they get getting paid by a related party. It's about a law that makes bloggers more responsible under terms journalist are already under.</p><p>It's a bit tricky as bloggers tend to have a hughe mix in which some bloggers may fall under journalism while others probably would not and this would be a blanket law that would cover everyone. That being said, it good that conflict of interest is disclosed as it helps prevent misleading comments/articles. Disclosure of such thing is a good thing.</p><p>As for advertisment on the bloggers page, it does make it a bit more complicated but it won't affect most sites that uses generic advertisements like google adwords as there really isn't much conflict of interest dealing with random corporations. For sites that are getting paid by the corporation in question, this should be disclosed anyways which i consider good. As stated before, I think it's a good thing in general though how well it turns out depends on how well it defines the gray area.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a law not against conflict of interest but if it is disclosed or not which is already in the law for certain things including advertising .
People are quite free to say what they wish as long as they tell people if they get getting paid by a related party .
It 's about a law that makes bloggers more responsible under terms journalist are already under.It 's a bit tricky as bloggers tend to have a hughe mix in which some bloggers may fall under journalism while others probably would not and this would be a blanket law that would cover everyone .
That being said , it good that conflict of interest is disclosed as it helps prevent misleading comments/articles .
Disclosure of such thing is a good thing.As for advertisment on the bloggers page , it does make it a bit more complicated but it wo n't affect most sites that uses generic advertisements like google adwords as there really is n't much conflict of interest dealing with random corporations .
For sites that are getting paid by the corporation in question , this should be disclosed anyways which i consider good .
As stated before , I think it 's a good thing in general though how well it turns out depends on how well it defines the gray area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a law not against conflict of interest but if it is disclosed or not which is already in the law for certain things including advertising.
People are quite free to say what they wish as long as they tell people if they get getting paid by a related party.
It's about a law that makes bloggers more responsible under terms journalist are already under.It's a bit tricky as bloggers tend to have a hughe mix in which some bloggers may fall under journalism while others probably would not and this would be a blanket law that would cover everyone.
That being said, it good that conflict of interest is disclosed as it helps prevent misleading comments/articles.
Disclosure of such thing is a good thing.As for advertisment on the bloggers page, it does make it a bit more complicated but it won't affect most sites that uses generic advertisements like google adwords as there really isn't much conflict of interest dealing with random corporations.
For sites that are getting paid by the corporation in question, this should be disclosed anyways which i consider good.
As stated before, I think it's a good thing in general though how well it turns out depends on how well it defines the gray area.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424127</id>
	<title>Re:stop crying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245692160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah but they didn't want to become the old media.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah but they did n't want to become the old media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah but they didn't want to become the old media.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423603</id>
	<title>Shilling, for a shilling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245690300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what it is, that's what it's always been.  Bloggers, and most web site (Affiliate link !!) are only there to make a buck or two and have no interest in anything else.  Free hardware.  free software.  free coffee.  And those affiliate links, by God !!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what it is , that 's what it 's always been .
Bloggers , and most web site ( Affiliate link ! !
) are only there to make a buck or two and have no interest in anything else .
Free hardware .
free software .
free coffee .
And those affiliate links , by God !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what it is, that's what it's always been.
Bloggers, and most web site (Affiliate link !!
) are only there to make a buck or two and have no interest in anything else.
Free hardware.
free software.
free coffee.
And those affiliate links, by God !
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424429</id>
	<title>Fascism for the win</title>
	<author>noddyxoi</author>
	<datestamp>1245693300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>thou shall not publish what is not the true !
there is no evil to report !</htmltext>
<tokenext>thou shall not publish what is not the true !
there is no evil to report !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thou shall not publish what is not the true !
there is no evil to report !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28430621</id>
	<title>Re:Spend $2 to recover $1 - Gov't at work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245671340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a hint. Get out the phone book, the newspaper, and do online searches and write down every local business and semi-local business that has even a remote possibility of having employment related to your degree. Write down their addresses and phone numbers and print out tons of resumes. Stop playing WoW or whatever other game you happen to be playing, stop watching T.V., get in your car and drive to each of those businesses and walk in and \_talk\_ to someone. Dress nicely, greet them warmly and sincerely, but not in a shifty or sleazy way, tell them you are looking for a job and the type of work you are looking for. Hand them your resume and ask them if they have any positions available you might be able to apply for. If they have one, fill out an application and turn it in, thank them for their time, and move on to the next business. If they don't have one, ask them if they could please give you a call if something comes up, thank them for their time, and move on to the next place. If you spend 12 hours a day for a month doing that and you \_still\_ don't have a job doing what you want, \_then\_ you can start complaining about the government screwing you over and you should probably seriously consider a different line of work or more education or work on your social skills, whichever happens to be the weakest point. Until you put that kind of effort into it, I don't want to hear you blaming others for your predicament.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a hint .
Get out the phone book , the newspaper , and do online searches and write down every local business and semi-local business that has even a remote possibility of having employment related to your degree .
Write down their addresses and phone numbers and print out tons of resumes .
Stop playing WoW or whatever other game you happen to be playing , stop watching T.V. , get in your car and drive to each of those businesses and walk in and \ _talk \ _ to someone .
Dress nicely , greet them warmly and sincerely , but not in a shifty or sleazy way , tell them you are looking for a job and the type of work you are looking for .
Hand them your resume and ask them if they have any positions available you might be able to apply for .
If they have one , fill out an application and turn it in , thank them for their time , and move on to the next business .
If they do n't have one , ask them if they could please give you a call if something comes up , thank them for their time , and move on to the next place .
If you spend 12 hours a day for a month doing that and you \ _still \ _ do n't have a job doing what you want , \ _then \ _ you can start complaining about the government screwing you over and you should probably seriously consider a different line of work or more education or work on your social skills , whichever happens to be the weakest point .
Until you put that kind of effort into it , I do n't want to hear you blaming others for your predicament .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a hint.
Get out the phone book, the newspaper, and do online searches and write down every local business and semi-local business that has even a remote possibility of having employment related to your degree.
Write down their addresses and phone numbers and print out tons of resumes.
Stop playing WoW or whatever other game you happen to be playing, stop watching T.V., get in your car and drive to each of those businesses and walk in and \_talk\_ to someone.
Dress nicely, greet them warmly and sincerely, but not in a shifty or sleazy way, tell them you are looking for a job and the type of work you are looking for.
Hand them your resume and ask them if they have any positions available you might be able to apply for.
If they have one, fill out an application and turn it in, thank them for their time, and move on to the next business.
If they don't have one, ask them if they could please give you a call if something comes up, thank them for their time, and move on to the next place.
If you spend 12 hours a day for a month doing that and you \_still\_ don't have a job doing what you want, \_then\_ you can start complaining about the government screwing you over and you should probably seriously consider a different line of work or more education or work on your social skills, whichever happens to be the weakest point.
Until you put that kind of effort into it, I don't want to hear you blaming others for your predicament.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423875</id>
	<title>Bloggers:</title>
	<author>uofitorn</author>
	<datestamp>1245691440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're not that important.  And if you are, then you have the resources to deal with the inquiries you might attract.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not that important .
And if you are , then you have the resources to deal with the inquiries you might attract .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not that important.
And if you are, then you have the resources to deal with the inquiries you might attract.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424265</id>
	<title>Political move?</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1245692640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember back when Yahoo's management were still equipped with spines and allowed users to comment on news stories, that the number of duplicate and near duplicate theo- and neocon posts grew like topsy, particularly around election time (circa 2002, 2004). Somebody was obviously paying for this, given the spam-like volume. I suspect this is a not so subtle propaganda suppression technique.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember back when Yahoo 's management were still equipped with spines and allowed users to comment on news stories , that the number of duplicate and near duplicate theo- and neocon posts grew like topsy , particularly around election time ( circa 2002 , 2004 ) .
Somebody was obviously paying for this , given the spam-like volume .
I suspect this is a not so subtle propaganda suppression technique .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember back when Yahoo's management were still equipped with spines and allowed users to comment on news stories, that the number of duplicate and near duplicate theo- and neocon posts grew like topsy, particularly around election time (circa 2002, 2004).
Somebody was obviously paying for this, given the spam-like volume.
I suspect this is a not so subtle propaganda suppression technique.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28425769</id>
	<title>Re:Unfortunately - too many believe what is blogge</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1245697800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if they have little keeping them going, then they have little to declare,  they will also be of little interest to the FTC, this is hopefully aimed at taking down FUD blogs and other shills that make it look like some random person's opinions when its in fact paid for by MS/apple/etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if they have little keeping them going , then they have little to declare , they will also be of little interest to the FTC , this is hopefully aimed at taking down FUD blogs and other shills that make it look like some random person 's opinions when its in fact paid for by MS/apple/etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if they have little keeping them going, then they have little to declare,  they will also be of little interest to the FTC, this is hopefully aimed at taking down FUD blogs and other shills that make it look like some random person's opinions when its in fact paid for by MS/apple/etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28425907</id>
	<title>I sure do love...</title>
	<author>hessian</author>
	<datestamp>1245698400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...this refreshing Pepsi!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...this refreshing Pepsi !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...this refreshing Pepsi!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28433781</id>
	<title>a free laptop</title>
	<author>neonsignal</author>
	<datestamp>1245685860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He got a free laptop? Damn, amazon mechanical turk only paid me five cents for writing that blog entry...</htmltext>
<tokenext>He got a free laptop ?
Damn , amazon mechanical turk only paid me five cents for writing that blog entry.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He got a free laptop?
Damn, amazon mechanical turk only paid me five cents for writing that blog entry...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423655</id>
	<title>Good Luck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245690540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good luck attempting to monitor every single blog that posts "suspicious" commercial endorsements. It'll be enough of a challenge to figure out which ones even have real people working on them versus automated systems just posting ads and random reposted content from other blogs.</p><p>If you can even manage to do this effective, my hat's off to you, FTC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good luck attempting to monitor every single blog that posts " suspicious " commercial endorsements .
It 'll be enough of a challenge to figure out which ones even have real people working on them versus automated systems just posting ads and random reposted content from other blogs.If you can even manage to do this effective , my hat 's off to you , FTC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good luck attempting to monitor every single blog that posts "suspicious" commercial endorsements.
It'll be enough of a challenge to figure out which ones even have real people working on them versus automated systems just posting ads and random reposted content from other blogs.If you can even manage to do this effective, my hat's off to you, FTC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424543</id>
	<title>Motor Trend? Car &amp; Driver?</title>
	<author>Itninja</author>
	<datestamp>1245693600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How are they different? I mean, every 'review' is just full of varying degrees of 'good'. Even the cars that clearly crappy, get something like 'this car was okay'. They would never give any direct negative information about their only significant revenue stream. I don't see why a blogger who got a free iPhone to blog about how awesome his iPhone is would be held to a higher standard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How are they different ?
I mean , every 'review ' is just full of varying degrees of 'good' .
Even the cars that clearly crappy , get something like 'this car was okay' .
They would never give any direct negative information about their only significant revenue stream .
I do n't see why a blogger who got a free iPhone to blog about how awesome his iPhone is would be held to a higher standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How are they different?
I mean, every 'review' is just full of varying degrees of 'good'.
Even the cars that clearly crappy, get something like 'this car was okay'.
They would never give any direct negative information about their only significant revenue stream.
I don't see why a blogger who got a free iPhone to blog about how awesome his iPhone is would be held to a higher standard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28425033</id>
	<title>Internet veracity</title>
	<author>dontmakemethink</author>
	<datestamp>1245695340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>We must protect at all costs the reliability of information online!  Imagine if you had to question the veracity of everything you read!  I wouldn't have the first clue what to buy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>We must protect at all costs the reliability of information online !
Imagine if you had to question the veracity of everything you read !
I would n't have the first clue what to buy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We must protect at all costs the reliability of information online!
Imagine if you had to question the veracity of everything you read!
I wouldn't have the first clue what to buy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28431397</id>
	<title>1st amendment?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245674040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this isn't constitutional so free feel to exterminate any pigs who try to enforce this against US citizens or anyone else</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is n't constitutional so free feel to exterminate any pigs who try to enforce this against US citizens or anyone else</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this isn't constitutional so free feel to exterminate any pigs who try to enforce this against US citizens or anyone else</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28429371</id>
	<title>Fr1st psot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245666720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">We strongly urge th4t they can hold</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>We strongly urge th4t they can hold [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We strongly urge th4t they can hold [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424101</id>
	<title>Re:stop crying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245692040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"Ok, do members of the old media have to disclose all their potential conflicts of interest? Do they face penalties if they don't?"</i> </p><p>To state the obvious, yes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ok , do members of the old media have to disclose all their potential conflicts of interest ?
Do they face penalties if they do n't ?
" To state the obvious , yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ok, do members of the old media have to disclose all their potential conflicts of interest?
Do they face penalties if they don't?
" To state the obvious, yes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424115</id>
	<title>Re:Unfortunately - too many believe what is blogge</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1245692100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plenty of people blog with high ethical standards. Certainly higher than every disgraced journalist we have seen over history (and it isn't like they are always at tabloids).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plenty of people blog with high ethical standards .
Certainly higher than every disgraced journalist we have seen over history ( and it is n't like they are always at tabloids ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plenty of people blog with high ethical standards.
Certainly higher than every disgraced journalist we have seen over history (and it isn't like they are always at tabloids).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424713</id>
	<title>SOP</title>
	<author>lee1</author>
	<datestamp>1245694260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Many bloggers have accepted perks such as free laptops, trips to Europe, $500 gift cards or even thousands of dollars for a 200-word post."

Don't forget <a href="http://lee-phillips.org/osx/tinderbox/djontb.html" title="lee-phillips.org">free software and advertising</a> [lee-phillips.org].  The <a href="http://www.markbernstein.org/Dec0501/JohnstononTinderbox.html" title="markbernstein.org">sleazy practice</a> [markbernstein.org] of offering advertising income to people who have nice things to say about a product is pretty well established by now; I doubt many readers are fooled.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Many bloggers have accepted perks such as free laptops , trips to Europe , $ 500 gift cards or even thousands of dollars for a 200-word post .
" Do n't forget free software and advertising [ lee-phillips.org ] .
The sleazy practice [ markbernstein.org ] of offering advertising income to people who have nice things to say about a product is pretty well established by now ; I doubt many readers are fooled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Many bloggers have accepted perks such as free laptops, trips to Europe, $500 gift cards or even thousands of dollars for a 200-word post.
"

Don't forget free software and advertising [lee-phillips.org].
The sleazy practice [markbernstein.org] of offering advertising income to people who have nice things to say about a product is pretty well established by now; I doubt many readers are fooled.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28428807</id>
	<title>Don't worry ...</title>
	<author>ntrfug</author>
	<datestamp>1245664740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... the evil Bushitler is out of office, and we all know The One would never, ever use government power to suppress dissent.</p><p>It will be OK. Really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... the evil Bushitler is out of office , and we all know The One would never , ever use government power to suppress dissent.It will be OK. Really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the evil Bushitler is out of office, and we all know The One would never, ever use government power to suppress dissent.It will be OK. Really.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424081</id>
	<title>Yes, they do</title>
	<author>tacokill</author>
	<datestamp>1245691980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It depends on which media you are talking about.  CNN/Fox/MSNBC?  Doubtful.  CNBC?   Absolutely.   You can thank Elliot Spitzer for that, whether you like him or not...
<br>
<br>
There are <b>very</b> stiff penalties in the financial world for not disclosing conflicts.  When CNBC has a speaker or guest, you'll notice they put up a disclosure screen that shows information on whether the speaker has any conflicts with the company he is discussing.   It's not perfect but it is a step in the right direction.  It wasn't always like this....back in the day, there were <b>serious</b> and glaring conflicts that were known but never discussed outside of those "in the know".
<br>
<br>
One that comes to mind is a stock analyst who's employer does investment banking for the company the analyst is writing about.   ie:  Citibank does invesment banking business with Wal-mart.   The Citibank analyst who covers Wal-mart has a conflict because if he pans Wal-mart, they take their investment banking business elsewhere.  So there is a strong incentive for the analyst to write glowing reports, despite whether or not they are true.   That is precisely what Spitzer put a stop to.    <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry\_Blodget" title="wikipedia.org">Henry Blodget</a> [wikipedia.org] was the worst offender but he was not alone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on which media you are talking about .
CNN/Fox/MSNBC ? Doubtful .
CNBC ? Absolutely .
You can thank Elliot Spitzer for that , whether you like him or not.. . There are very stiff penalties in the financial world for not disclosing conflicts .
When CNBC has a speaker or guest , you 'll notice they put up a disclosure screen that shows information on whether the speaker has any conflicts with the company he is discussing .
It 's not perfect but it is a step in the right direction .
It was n't always like this....back in the day , there were serious and glaring conflicts that were known but never discussed outside of those " in the know " .
One that comes to mind is a stock analyst who 's employer does investment banking for the company the analyst is writing about .
ie : Citibank does invesment banking business with Wal-mart .
The Citibank analyst who covers Wal-mart has a conflict because if he pans Wal-mart , they take their investment banking business elsewhere .
So there is a strong incentive for the analyst to write glowing reports , despite whether or not they are true .
That is precisely what Spitzer put a stop to .
Henry Blodget [ wikipedia.org ] was the worst offender but he was not alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on which media you are talking about.
CNN/Fox/MSNBC?  Doubtful.
CNBC?   Absolutely.
You can thank Elliot Spitzer for that, whether you like him or not...


There are very stiff penalties in the financial world for not disclosing conflicts.
When CNBC has a speaker or guest, you'll notice they put up a disclosure screen that shows information on whether the speaker has any conflicts with the company he is discussing.
It's not perfect but it is a step in the right direction.
It wasn't always like this....back in the day, there were serious and glaring conflicts that were known but never discussed outside of those "in the know".
One that comes to mind is a stock analyst who's employer does investment banking for the company the analyst is writing about.
ie:  Citibank does invesment banking business with Wal-mart.
The Citibank analyst who covers Wal-mart has a conflict because if he pans Wal-mart, they take their investment banking business elsewhere.
So there is a strong incentive for the analyst to write glowing reports, despite whether or not they are true.
That is precisely what Spitzer put a stop to.
Henry Blodget [wikipedia.org] was the worst offender but he was not alone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424789</id>
	<title>Re:stop crying</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1245694440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ok, do members of the old media have to disclose all their potential conflicts of interest? Do they face penalties if they don't?</p></div></blockquote><p>In general, maybe, in that the FTC has general power to pursue "unfair and deceptive business practice", and there can be some enforcement action against certain abuses. But the kind of specific rules that are proposed for bloggers are not imposed on "old media" by the FTC, despite the fact that the exact practices -- free product given to reviewers, media outlets that offer reviews of the same products that they receive money to advertise, etc. -- at issue with bloggers are the norm in the traditional media, to the extent that there are just a handful of outlets (e.g., Consumer Reports) that <i>do not</i> engage in that kind of activity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , do members of the old media have to disclose all their potential conflicts of interest ?
Do they face penalties if they do n't ? In general , maybe , in that the FTC has general power to pursue " unfair and deceptive business practice " , and there can be some enforcement action against certain abuses .
But the kind of specific rules that are proposed for bloggers are not imposed on " old media " by the FTC , despite the fact that the exact practices -- free product given to reviewers , media outlets that offer reviews of the same products that they receive money to advertise , etc .
-- at issue with bloggers are the norm in the traditional media , to the extent that there are just a handful of outlets ( e.g. , Consumer Reports ) that do not engage in that kind of activity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, do members of the old media have to disclose all their potential conflicts of interest?
Do they face penalties if they don't?In general, maybe, in that the FTC has general power to pursue "unfair and deceptive business practice", and there can be some enforcement action against certain abuses.
But the kind of specific rules that are proposed for bloggers are not imposed on "old media" by the FTC, despite the fact that the exact practices -- free product given to reviewers, media outlets that offer reviews of the same products that they receive money to advertise, etc.
-- at issue with bloggers are the norm in the traditional media, to the extent that there are just a handful of outlets (e.g., Consumer Reports) that do not engage in that kind of activity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28428915</id>
	<title>Re:My comment can be summed up in four words....</title>
	<author>St.Creed</author>
	<datestamp>1245665100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That depends on the extradition laws of the respective countries. However, if you only hosted the blog outside the USA I think you'd be in for some nasty surprises. If you also live there, they couldn't touch you unless they have a new extradition agreement. It needs to carry some hefty punishments for that to work, though. They don't normally extradite people over parking tickets. And it also has to be a criminal offense in their country - something I can't see happening anytime soon.
<p>
Pump and dump schemes could be an exception to this, though - I know you can get into trouble for that locally, but not sure if it's an issue if you pump and dump USA stocks. Those are not monitored or protected by our local FTC.
</p><p>
If you really piss off the FTC, I wouldn't accept invitations for meetings in the USA after that though. We all know what happened to Dimitri Sklarov (sp?).
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That depends on the extradition laws of the respective countries .
However , if you only hosted the blog outside the USA I think you 'd be in for some nasty surprises .
If you also live there , they could n't touch you unless they have a new extradition agreement .
It needs to carry some hefty punishments for that to work , though .
They do n't normally extradite people over parking tickets .
And it also has to be a criminal offense in their country - something I ca n't see happening anytime soon .
Pump and dump schemes could be an exception to this , though - I know you can get into trouble for that locally , but not sure if it 's an issue if you pump and dump USA stocks .
Those are not monitored or protected by our local FTC .
If you really piss off the FTC , I would n't accept invitations for meetings in the USA after that though .
We all know what happened to Dimitri Sklarov ( sp ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That depends on the extradition laws of the respective countries.
However, if you only hosted the blog outside the USA I think you'd be in for some nasty surprises.
If you also live there, they couldn't touch you unless they have a new extradition agreement.
It needs to carry some hefty punishments for that to work, though.
They don't normally extradite people over parking tickets.
And it also has to be a criminal offense in their country - something I can't see happening anytime soon.
Pump and dump schemes could be an exception to this, though - I know you can get into trouble for that locally, but not sure if it's an issue if you pump and dump USA stocks.
Those are not monitored or protected by our local FTC.
If you really piss off the FTC, I wouldn't accept invitations for meetings in the USA after that though.
We all know what happened to Dimitri Sklarov (sp?
).
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423867</id>
	<title>Re:Unfortunately - too many believe what is blogge</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1245691380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As you have written it on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., it must be true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As you have written it on /. , it must be true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As you have written it on /., it must be true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424483</id>
	<title>FTC to regulate Amazon.com reviews too?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245693480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So does this mean that all the reviews on Amazon.com and other "review" sites are going to be regulated by the FTC?  I know that a lot of those companies pay people to add reviews to their products.  Heck I was in a book club that required us to write a review of the book we were reading on Amazon.  Are we all then considered contributors and now is Amazon liable for what those reviewers say?  I can see this getting out of hand with an over zealous FTC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So does this mean that all the reviews on Amazon.com and other " review " sites are going to be regulated by the FTC ?
I know that a lot of those companies pay people to add reviews to their products .
Heck I was in a book club that required us to write a review of the book we were reading on Amazon .
Are we all then considered contributors and now is Amazon liable for what those reviewers say ?
I can see this getting out of hand with an over zealous FTC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does this mean that all the reviews on Amazon.com and other "review" sites are going to be regulated by the FTC?
I know that a lot of those companies pay people to add reviews to their products.
Heck I was in a book club that required us to write a review of the book we were reading on Amazon.
Are we all then considered contributors and now is Amazon liable for what those reviewers say?
I can see this getting out of hand with an over zealous FTC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424311</id>
	<title>Old media too ?</title>
	<author>billcopc</author>
	<datestamp>1245692760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So they want to bust bloggers who accept bribes, but does the FTC plan to go after every single goddamned magazine ever ?  It's not like Gamespot invented the practice.  I can think of very few print publications that I consider "impartial", at least to a degree where I can soundly make purchasing decisions based on their reviews.</p><p>The FTC should be monitoring the channels and their operation, not the content therein.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So they want to bust bloggers who accept bribes , but does the FTC plan to go after every single goddamned magazine ever ?
It 's not like Gamespot invented the practice .
I can think of very few print publications that I consider " impartial " , at least to a degree where I can soundly make purchasing decisions based on their reviews.The FTC should be monitoring the channels and their operation , not the content therein .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they want to bust bloggers who accept bribes, but does the FTC plan to go after every single goddamned magazine ever ?
It's not like Gamespot invented the practice.
I can think of very few print publications that I consider "impartial", at least to a degree where I can soundly make purchasing decisions based on their reviews.The FTC should be monitoring the channels and their operation, not the content therein.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423653</id>
	<title>Oh, geez</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245690540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Should the government really be allowed to regulate what you put on your personal website, truth or fiction?  What happened to the unregulated internet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should the government really be allowed to regulate what you put on your personal website , truth or fiction ?
What happened to the unregulated internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should the government really be allowed to regulate what you put on your personal website, truth or fiction?
What happened to the unregulated internet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28427007</id>
	<title>ktog.org</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245702360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Woohoo, hopefully this will cut down on the number of paid shills on ktog.org.  That used to be a good site until Kel-Tec ruined it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Woohoo , hopefully this will cut down on the number of paid shills on ktog.org .
That used to be a good site until Kel-Tec ruined it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Woohoo, hopefully this will cut down on the number of paid shills on ktog.org.
That used to be a good site until Kel-Tec ruined it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424393</id>
	<title>Re:stop crying</title>
	<author>SkyDude</author>
	<datestamp>1245693060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh. come on - the old media is comprised of upstanding, honest folks who dream of doing anything untoward. Isn't it....?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh .
come on - the old media is comprised of upstanding , honest folks who dream of doing anything untoward .
Is n't it.... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh.
come on - the old media is comprised of upstanding, honest folks who dream of doing anything untoward.
Isn't it....?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28441189</id>
	<title>Thanks Government</title>
	<author>Plugh</author>
	<datestamp>1245780660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just one more way you are protecting me from myself.
And forcibly taking my money (via taxes) to pay for the privilege.


Geez, thanks a lot, government guys.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just one more way you are protecting me from myself .
And forcibly taking my money ( via taxes ) to pay for the privilege .
Geez , thanks a lot , government guys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just one more way you are protecting me from myself.
And forcibly taking my money (via taxes) to pay for the privilege.
Geez, thanks a lot, government guys.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424531</id>
	<title>Re:Unfortunately - too many believe what is blogge</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1245693600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know why anyone believes what is written in a blog without first checking it out.</p></div><p>See, the problem is that the people you know are the minority that aren't complete idiots.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know why anyone believes what is written in a blog without first checking it out.See , the problem is that the people you know are the minority that are n't complete idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know why anyone believes what is written in a blog without first checking it out.See, the problem is that the people you know are the minority that aren't complete idiots.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423701</id>
	<title>geeks have no monopoly on morality</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1245690660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dont you read slashdot replies?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dont you read slashdot replies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dont you read slashdot replies?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28427033</id>
	<title>The only thing the Gov does well is spend your $</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245702420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great another stupid law that will require 500 more salaried government people to monitor, report and over all waste our money with something that is really unenforceable anyway... we'll just throw more civil liberties out the window along with our tax money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great another stupid law that will require 500 more salaried government people to monitor , report and over all waste our money with something that is really unenforceable anyway... we 'll just throw more civil liberties out the window along with our tax money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great another stupid law that will require 500 more salaried government people to monitor, report and over all waste our money with something that is really unenforceable anyway... we'll just throw more civil liberties out the window along with our tax money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424657</id>
	<title>Re:stop crying</title>
	<author>cawpin</author>
	<datestamp>1245693900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You wouldn't believe what is considered a conflict of interest in the modern newspaper. My wife writes for a large newspaper and some of the stuff they consider a conflict is on the verge of violating her rights as a person. The rules are VERY strict.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You would n't believe what is considered a conflict of interest in the modern newspaper .
My wife writes for a large newspaper and some of the stuff they consider a conflict is on the verge of violating her rights as a person .
The rules are VERY strict .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You wouldn't believe what is considered a conflict of interest in the modern newspaper.
My wife writes for a large newspaper and some of the stuff they consider a conflict is on the verge of violating her rights as a person.
The rules are VERY strict.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424099</id>
	<title>It's all about disclosure</title>
	<author>Synn</author>
	<datestamp>1245692040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any time you have a source of communication that has a lot of eyes or ears on it, whether it's a celeb talking on the radio, TV, a blog, or even twitter, people are going to want to leverage that source for ads. It's really not a big deal, and actually it's a healthy thing(it pays the bills so these people can keep doing this), so long as there's disclosure.</p><p>If there's disclosure then readers can make up their own mind about the writer's credibility.</p><p>The big hubbub right now is that this has been moving away from the big names(for example, Slashdot has sponsors) into the everyday blogger. You don't have to be TechCrunch to make money blogging anymore and now that it's gotten pervasive, keeping it ethical has become the hot topic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any time you have a source of communication that has a lot of eyes or ears on it , whether it 's a celeb talking on the radio , TV , a blog , or even twitter , people are going to want to leverage that source for ads .
It 's really not a big deal , and actually it 's a healthy thing ( it pays the bills so these people can keep doing this ) , so long as there 's disclosure.If there 's disclosure then readers can make up their own mind about the writer 's credibility.The big hubbub right now is that this has been moving away from the big names ( for example , Slashdot has sponsors ) into the everyday blogger .
You do n't have to be TechCrunch to make money blogging anymore and now that it 's gotten pervasive , keeping it ethical has become the hot topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any time you have a source of communication that has a lot of eyes or ears on it, whether it's a celeb talking on the radio, TV, a blog, or even twitter, people are going to want to leverage that source for ads.
It's really not a big deal, and actually it's a healthy thing(it pays the bills so these people can keep doing this), so long as there's disclosure.If there's disclosure then readers can make up their own mind about the writer's credibility.The big hubbub right now is that this has been moving away from the big names(for example, Slashdot has sponsors) into the everyday blogger.
You don't have to be TechCrunch to make money blogging anymore and now that it's gotten pervasive, keeping it ethical has become the hot topic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424211</id>
	<title>Wait one fucking second...</title>
	<author>shellster\_dude</author>
	<datestamp>1245692400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>When has there ever been any expectation of reliability or accuracy in blogs?  If I want to accept kickbacks and from someone and write my heart out about how wonderful they are, that is my own business.  No one should ever take a blog at face value.  If they do, they deserve to be duped.  I can only see this making any kind of sense, if the blogs in question purport to be legitimate and fact based.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When has there ever been any expectation of reliability or accuracy in blogs ?
If I want to accept kickbacks and from someone and write my heart out about how wonderful they are , that is my own business .
No one should ever take a blog at face value .
If they do , they deserve to be duped .
I can only see this making any kind of sense , if the blogs in question purport to be legitimate and fact based .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When has there ever been any expectation of reliability or accuracy in blogs?
If I want to accept kickbacks and from someone and write my heart out about how wonderful they are, that is my own business.
No one should ever take a blog at face value.
If they do, they deserve to be duped.
I can only see this making any kind of sense, if the blogs in question purport to be legitimate and fact based.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424633</id>
	<title>Re:stop crying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245693840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd have modded you up if you spelled 'speech' correctly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd have modded you up if you spelled 'speech ' correctly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd have modded you up if you spelled 'speech' correctly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423503</id>
	<title>Conflicts of interest?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245690000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>for any false claims or failure to disclose conflicts of interest</i></p><p>Since when is disclosing a conflict of interest a legal requirement? Ethical, of course. But a legal requirement? Aren't people free to express their opinions regardless of what their motivations might be?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for any false claims or failure to disclose conflicts of interestSince when is disclosing a conflict of interest a legal requirement ?
Ethical , of course .
But a legal requirement ?
Are n't people free to express their opinions regardless of what their motivations might be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for any false claims or failure to disclose conflicts of interestSince when is disclosing a conflict of interest a legal requirement?
Ethical, of course.
But a legal requirement?
Aren't people free to express their opinions regardless of what their motivations might be?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28425573</id>
	<title>save me, gubment!</title>
	<author>mattwarden</author>
	<datestamp>1245697020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Save me, government! I can't tell the difference between real journalism and paid advertisements, but I believe you can! Save me from my own incompetence!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Save me , government !
I ca n't tell the difference between real journalism and paid advertisements , but I believe you can !
Save me from my own incompetence ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Save me, government!
I can't tell the difference between real journalism and paid advertisements, but I believe you can!
Save me from my own incompetence!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423565</id>
	<title>The IRS is next.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245690180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Havent been declaring all those 'free' gifts on your taxes have you mister blogger...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Havent been declaring all those 'free ' gifts on your taxes have you mister blogger.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Havent been declaring all those 'free' gifts on your taxes have you mister blogger...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424295</id>
	<title>Bread and Butter</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1245692700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the only people that would be willing to jump through all the loop holes required by the FTC would need to make enough money off their blog that its their job. There are very few that can accomplish this. This will stifle free speech more significantly then the benefits it will reap. I honestly don't understand why they would want to try this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the only people that would be willing to jump through all the loop holes required by the FTC would need to make enough money off their blog that its their job .
There are very few that can accomplish this .
This will stifle free speech more significantly then the benefits it will reap .
I honestly do n't understand why they would want to try this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the only people that would be willing to jump through all the loop holes required by the FTC would need to make enough money off their blog that its their job.
There are very few that can accomplish this.
This will stifle free speech more significantly then the benefits it will reap.
I honestly don't understand why they would want to try this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28425149</id>
	<title>Re:stop crying</title>
	<author>barocco</author>
	<datestamp>1245695700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you considered the possibility that the act of monitoring new media would make it better than the old media? If blogs are turned into blocs of unregulated special interest conglomerates, how different are they from the networks?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you considered the possibility that the act of monitoring new media would make it better than the old media ?
If blogs are turned into blocs of unregulated special interest conglomerates , how different are they from the networks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you considered the possibility that the act of monitoring new media would make it better than the old media?
If blogs are turned into blocs of unregulated special interest conglomerates, how different are they from the networks?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28428769</id>
	<title>Re:Conflicts of interest?</title>
	<author>Pollardito</author>
	<datestamp>1245664680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the one hand, I like to see some real lines drawn in this age of "if there isn't a law against it, that means I should do it or else someone else will anyway."  On the other hand, it seems like a waste of legal effort to track down stuff like this when it seems like there are too few resources to investigate internet crime and far more serious crimes being committed (identity theft, credit card theft, phone bill cramming, etc).  It's hard to pick a side on this one</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the one hand , I like to see some real lines drawn in this age of " if there is n't a law against it , that means I should do it or else someone else will anyway .
" On the other hand , it seems like a waste of legal effort to track down stuff like this when it seems like there are too few resources to investigate internet crime and far more serious crimes being committed ( identity theft , credit card theft , phone bill cramming , etc ) .
It 's hard to pick a side on this one</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the one hand, I like to see some real lines drawn in this age of "if there isn't a law against it, that means I should do it or else someone else will anyway.
"  On the other hand, it seems like a waste of legal effort to track down stuff like this when it seems like there are too few resources to investigate internet crime and far more serious crimes being committed (identity theft, credit card theft, phone bill cramming, etc).
It's hard to pick a side on this one</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28429031</id>
	<title>FRISTv PSOT..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245665520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">were nullified by unless you can work have left in in any way relateAd Lite is straining Again. There are case you want to lizard - In other subscribers. Please bulk of the FreeBSD</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>were nullified by unless you can work have left in in any way relateAd Lite is straining Again .
There are case you want to lizard - In other subscribers .
Please bulk of the FreeBSD [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>were nullified by unless you can work have left in in any way relateAd Lite is straining Again.
There are case you want to lizard - In other subscribers.
Please bulk of the FreeBSD [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424553</id>
	<title>Self Regulating already...</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1245693600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If there is one thing the Internet is good at, it is calling BS.  If someone makes a bogus claim there are a thousand others ready to jump down their throats telling them how wrong they are for making such a bogus claim.  We don't need more FTC regulation...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there is one thing the Internet is good at , it is calling BS .
If someone makes a bogus claim there are a thousand others ready to jump down their throats telling them how wrong they are for making such a bogus claim .
We do n't need more FTC regulation.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there is one thing the Internet is good at, it is calling BS.
If someone makes a bogus claim there are a thousand others ready to jump down their throats telling them how wrong they are for making such a bogus claim.
We don't need more FTC regulation...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28436825</id>
	<title>Putting the FTC on to tracking lobbyist payola</title>
	<author>arnierosner</author>
	<datestamp>1245758160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about putting the FTC on to tracking something really important!  Like items that contribute to corrupt government.  Want to talk about a conflict of interest?  Payola?

Have the FTC track lobbyist contributions to legislator's election campaigns.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about putting the FTC on to tracking something really important !
Like items that contribute to corrupt government .
Want to talk about a conflict of interest ?
Payola ? Have the FTC track lobbyist contributions to legislator 's election campaigns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about putting the FTC on to tracking something really important!
Like items that contribute to corrupt government.
Want to talk about a conflict of interest?
Payola?

Have the FTC track lobbyist contributions to legislator's election campaigns.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423609</id>
	<title>Re:stop crying</title>
	<author>Reality Master 201</author>
	<datestamp>1245690300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, do members of the old media have to disclose all their potential conflicts of interest?  Do they face penalties if they don't?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , do members of the old media have to disclose all their potential conflicts of interest ?
Do they face penalties if they do n't ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, do members of the old media have to disclose all their potential conflicts of interest?
Do they face penalties if they don't?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423731</id>
	<title>My comment can be summed up in four words....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245690780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good luck with that.</p><p>There's no chance that this would ever work and the only people they would catch are the most blatant offenders. One other thing that springs to mind, what about blogs run by people outside the US. Does it affect them if they write a review about a US company?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good luck with that.There 's no chance that this would ever work and the only people they would catch are the most blatant offenders .
One other thing that springs to mind , what about blogs run by people outside the US .
Does it affect them if they write a review about a US company ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good luck with that.There's no chance that this would ever work and the only people they would catch are the most blatant offenders.
One other thing that springs to mind, what about blogs run by people outside the US.
Does it affect them if they write a review about a US company?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423467</id>
	<title>First product shill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245689880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*Knock knock*</p><p>BRB FTC</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* Knock knock * BRB FTC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*Knock knock*BRB FTC</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28427077</id>
	<title>FTC should kill lots of sites</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1245702600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FTC should kill all of those fake review sites that are 100\% paid advertisements.   Like for hosting providers, marchant accounts (accepting credit cards), and I'm sure there is a whole host of others.  It's damn hard to find real information on which of these companies are worth a damn and it's all because they flood the search engines with all that garbage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FTC should kill all of those fake review sites that are 100 \ % paid advertisements .
Like for hosting providers , marchant accounts ( accepting credit cards ) , and I 'm sure there is a whole host of others .
It 's damn hard to find real information on which of these companies are worth a damn and it 's all because they flood the search engines with all that garbage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FTC should kill all of those fake review sites that are 100\% paid advertisements.
Like for hosting providers, marchant accounts (accepting credit cards), and I'm sure there is a whole host of others.
It's damn hard to find real information on which of these companies are worth a damn and it's all because they flood the search engines with all that garbage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423757</id>
	<title>Is the inverse true?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245690900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I name-drop a company in a blog post and that triggers an investigation by the FTC, does that mean I was entitled to commission by the company and can therefore collect on it?</p><p>This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I name-drop a company in a blog post and that triggers an investigation by the FTC , does that mean I was entitled to commission by the company and can therefore collect on it ? This post brought to you by Carl 's Jr .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I name-drop a company in a blog post and that triggers an investigation by the FTC, does that mean I was entitled to commission by the company and can therefore collect on it?This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423997</id>
	<title>Re:stop crying</title>
	<author>BBTaeKwonDo</author>
	<datestamp>1245691740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And are those penalties meted out by the government or by their employer? There's a huge difference there. This "review" by the FTC has serious First Amendment implications. I expect this review will be thrown out by the first judge that gets a chance. The FTC simply cannot take over the role played by newspaper and magazine editors in addressing impartiality concerns.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And are those penalties meted out by the government or by their employer ?
There 's a huge difference there .
This " review " by the FTC has serious First Amendment implications .
I expect this review will be thrown out by the first judge that gets a chance .
The FTC simply can not take over the role played by newspaper and magazine editors in addressing impartiality concerns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And are those penalties meted out by the government or by their employer?
There's a huge difference there.
This "review" by the FTC has serious First Amendment implications.
I expect this review will be thrown out by the first judge that gets a chance.
The FTC simply cannot take over the role played by newspaper and magazine editors in addressing impartiality concerns.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423609</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423747</id>
	<title>Take blogs for what they are</title>
	<author>rodrigoandrade</author>
	<datestamp>1245690840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sites created by people like you and me, who happen to have a lot of free time in their hands, and like to do something useful with it instead of reading/posting to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, and NO blog should be seen as an authority on anything.<br><br>If a blog gives too glowing reviews of whatever product, try to corroborate the opinion by reading another blog, or product review.<br><br>As for TFA, goodluckwiththat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sites created by people like you and me , who happen to have a lot of free time in their hands , and like to do something useful with it instead of reading/posting to / .
Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion , and NO blog should be seen as an authority on anything.If a blog gives too glowing reviews of whatever product , try to corroborate the opinion by reading another blog , or product review.As for TFA , goodluckwiththat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sites created by people like you and me, who happen to have a lot of free time in their hands, and like to do something useful with it instead of reading/posting to /.
Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, and NO blog should be seen as an authority on anything.If a blog gives too glowing reviews of whatever product, try to corroborate the opinion by reading another blog, or product review.As for TFA, goodluckwiththat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28431033</id>
	<title>Re:stop crying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245672900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>kill yourself you fascist pig</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>kill yourself you fascist pig</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kill yourself you fascist pig</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424839</id>
	<title>Re:stop crying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245694620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Blogging is different then advertising and should have different rules -- or NO rules.</p><p>Free Speach is much more important then some FTC fear of everybody being confused on the internet.</p></div><p>Except when you are blogging advertisement.  Plus, you don't pay for FREE speech.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blogging is different then advertising and should have different rules -- or NO rules.Free Speach is much more important then some FTC fear of everybody being confused on the internet.Except when you are blogging advertisement .
Plus , you do n't pay for FREE speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blogging is different then advertising and should have different rules -- or NO rules.Free Speach is much more important then some FTC fear of everybody being confused on the internet.Except when you are blogging advertisement.
Plus, you don't pay for FREE speech.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424697</id>
	<title>Re:Unfortunately - too many believe what is blogge</title>
	<author>Old97</author>
	<datestamp>1245694140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Plenty of people blog with high ethical standards. Certainly higher than every disgraced journalist we have seen over history (and it isn't like they are always at tabloids).</p></div><p>
There are no standards that bloggers are held to.  There is no recognized profession or board or any form of regulation or governance.  There is no entrance exam, qualifications or licensing.  It's just an activity anyone with Internet access can do.  So only the bloggers' personal standards apply and those vary greatly from one to the other.  If you find one that is consistently on the mark and accurate that you can trust, great, but you need to establish that trust first and not just believe everything you read.  It's also pretty much true for "journalism" as well with the exception that journalists tend to work for organizations, some of which want good reputations so they enforce some standards.  That's why I asked the question at the end of my post.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plenty of people blog with high ethical standards .
Certainly higher than every disgraced journalist we have seen over history ( and it is n't like they are always at tabloids ) .
There are no standards that bloggers are held to .
There is no recognized profession or board or any form of regulation or governance .
There is no entrance exam , qualifications or licensing .
It 's just an activity anyone with Internet access can do .
So only the bloggers ' personal standards apply and those vary greatly from one to the other .
If you find one that is consistently on the mark and accurate that you can trust , great , but you need to establish that trust first and not just believe everything you read .
It 's also pretty much true for " journalism " as well with the exception that journalists tend to work for organizations , some of which want good reputations so they enforce some standards .
That 's why I asked the question at the end of my post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plenty of people blog with high ethical standards.
Certainly higher than every disgraced journalist we have seen over history (and it isn't like they are always at tabloids).
There are no standards that bloggers are held to.
There is no recognized profession or board or any form of regulation or governance.
There is no entrance exam, qualifications or licensing.
It's just an activity anyone with Internet access can do.
So only the bloggers' personal standards apply and those vary greatly from one to the other.
If you find one that is consistently on the mark and accurate that you can trust, great, but you need to establish that trust first and not just believe everything you read.
It's also pretty much true for "journalism" as well with the exception that journalists tend to work for organizations, some of which want good reputations so they enforce some standards.
That's why I asked the question at the end of my post.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423753</id>
	<title>Small time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245690840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Free laptops, trips to Europe, $500 gift cards....<br>A British MP would have all this by lunchtime and still feel they deserve a &#194;&pound;300 dinner and &#194;&pound;1000 a night stay in a 5 star hotel!</p><p>Btw, I know Britain is in Europe and therefore doesn't require any travelling to get there<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free laptops , trips to Europe , $ 500 gift cards....A British MP would have all this by lunchtime and still feel they deserve a     300 dinner and     1000 a night stay in a 5 star hotel ! Btw , I know Britain is in Europe and therefore does n't require any travelling to get there : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free laptops, trips to Europe, $500 gift cards....A British MP would have all this by lunchtime and still feel they deserve a Â£300 dinner and Â£1000 a night stay in a 5 star hotel!Btw, I know Britain is in Europe and therefore doesn't require any travelling to get there :P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28433565</id>
	<title>Has the FTC considered...</title>
	<author>Vitriol+Angst</author>
	<datestamp>1245684660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... that they could be monitoring TV News for unpaid advertising, product bias or factual incorrectness?</p><p>I mean, have they noticed all the PR infotainment that gets put on local newscasts as if it didn't come from some company promoting the health benefits of Orange Juice?</p><p>If Fox News can win in the supreme court for the right to not tell us the truth -- then maybe Joe Blow blogger should have the right to make stuff up too.</p><p>I would be very happy, if we got rid of all paid bloggers -- but who the heck is going to decide? And there are so many, that enforcement would be totally arbitrary.<br>Kind of like the $2.4 Million judgement against some poor lady who downloaded 24 songs. She is paying the cost for 2.3 million people who they didn't catch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... that they could be monitoring TV News for unpaid advertising , product bias or factual incorrectness ? I mean , have they noticed all the PR infotainment that gets put on local newscasts as if it did n't come from some company promoting the health benefits of Orange Juice ? If Fox News can win in the supreme court for the right to not tell us the truth -- then maybe Joe Blow blogger should have the right to make stuff up too.I would be very happy , if we got rid of all paid bloggers -- but who the heck is going to decide ?
And there are so many , that enforcement would be totally arbitrary.Kind of like the $ 2.4 Million judgement against some poor lady who downloaded 24 songs .
She is paying the cost for 2.3 million people who they did n't catch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... that they could be monitoring TV News for unpaid advertising, product bias or factual incorrectness?I mean, have they noticed all the PR infotainment that gets put on local newscasts as if it didn't come from some company promoting the health benefits of Orange Juice?If Fox News can win in the supreme court for the right to not tell us the truth -- then maybe Joe Blow blogger should have the right to make stuff up too.I would be very happy, if we got rid of all paid bloggers -- but who the heck is going to decide?
And there are so many, that enforcement would be totally arbitrary.Kind of like the $2.4 Million judgement against some poor lady who downloaded 24 songs.
She is paying the cost for 2.3 million people who they didn't catch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424063</id>
	<title>Not sure gov't is needed here</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1245691920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd definitely like to see bloggers identify when they get financial compensation from a company.  Especially if the blog is running a review on a product/service.  I wouldn't want to buy a product only to find out that the blogger was paid $100 to rewrite some boilerplate company-supplied text into their own style.  On the other hand, I'm not sure that the government needs to step in here.  Perhaps if, on a case by case basis, it is found that a company is buying many positive reviews and using sleazy tactics to silence critics, but otherwise full disclosure should be a "best practice policy", not an "enforced by the Federal government rule."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd definitely like to see bloggers identify when they get financial compensation from a company .
Especially if the blog is running a review on a product/service .
I would n't want to buy a product only to find out that the blogger was paid $ 100 to rewrite some boilerplate company-supplied text into their own style .
On the other hand , I 'm not sure that the government needs to step in here .
Perhaps if , on a case by case basis , it is found that a company is buying many positive reviews and using sleazy tactics to silence critics , but otherwise full disclosure should be a " best practice policy " , not an " enforced by the Federal government rule .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd definitely like to see bloggers identify when they get financial compensation from a company.
Especially if the blog is running a review on a product/service.
I wouldn't want to buy a product only to find out that the blogger was paid $100 to rewrite some boilerplate company-supplied text into their own style.
On the other hand, I'm not sure that the government needs to step in here.
Perhaps if, on a case by case basis, it is found that a company is buying many positive reviews and using sleazy tactics to silence critics, but otherwise full disclosure should be a "best practice policy", not an "enforced by the Federal government rule.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28435171</id>
	<title>Re:Spend $2 to recover $1 - Gov't at work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245696120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not laying this on Obama in any way.  We've been on this path of gov't overspending, and over-intervening for awhile now.  Although Obama looks to maybe take these things to a whole new level, and he does have support in congress to do so.</p></div><p>So...you're not laying the blame on Obama, but you're just saying the blame could be on Obama. Man, I would love to have so much power that I could retroactively crash the stock market with my policies then be blamed for policies that might fix things. But if Joe Blow is willing to put up a plan and take all the blame for it, more power to him.</p><p>Frankly, I've always thought the lack of regulation was what allowed companies to act with abandon, building themselves up to be "too big to fail" but maybe I'm wrong. Could be the government supported the monopolies and didn't use the powers they weren't allowed to use because people wouldn't let them. Or there's the problem that the companies got large enough to influence government in the first place.</p><p>I don't want the government going in to socialize everything or to stand there with the company's balls in a vice. I'd just hope they don't end up like the UN, passing a resolution to write a letter to threaten to threaten a country with a show of generic cold stares.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not laying this on Obama in any way .
We 've been on this path of gov't overspending , and over-intervening for awhile now .
Although Obama looks to maybe take these things to a whole new level , and he does have support in congress to do so.So...you 're not laying the blame on Obama , but you 're just saying the blame could be on Obama .
Man , I would love to have so much power that I could retroactively crash the stock market with my policies then be blamed for policies that might fix things .
But if Joe Blow is willing to put up a plan and take all the blame for it , more power to him.Frankly , I 've always thought the lack of regulation was what allowed companies to act with abandon , building themselves up to be " too big to fail " but maybe I 'm wrong .
Could be the government supported the monopolies and did n't use the powers they were n't allowed to use because people would n't let them .
Or there 's the problem that the companies got large enough to influence government in the first place.I do n't want the government going in to socialize everything or to stand there with the company 's balls in a vice .
I 'd just hope they do n't end up like the UN , passing a resolution to write a letter to threaten to threaten a country with a show of generic cold stares .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not laying this on Obama in any way.
We've been on this path of gov't overspending, and over-intervening for awhile now.
Although Obama looks to maybe take these things to a whole new level, and he does have support in congress to do so.So...you're not laying the blame on Obama, but you're just saying the blame could be on Obama.
Man, I would love to have so much power that I could retroactively crash the stock market with my policies then be blamed for policies that might fix things.
But if Joe Blow is willing to put up a plan and take all the blame for it, more power to him.Frankly, I've always thought the lack of regulation was what allowed companies to act with abandon, building themselves up to be "too big to fail" but maybe I'm wrong.
Could be the government supported the monopolies and didn't use the powers they weren't allowed to use because people wouldn't let them.
Or there's the problem that the companies got large enough to influence government in the first place.I don't want the government going in to socialize everything or to stand there with the company's balls in a vice.
I'd just hope they don't end up like the UN, passing a resolution to write a letter to threaten to threaten a country with a show of generic cold stares.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28429637</id>
	<title>Re:stop crying</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1245667680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Blogging is different then advertising and should have different rules -- or NO rules.</p></div><p>That's the whole point. Let me, the reader, know whether you're doing blogging or advertising.</p><p>I'm all for free speech and all, but at the same time I believe in rules. Free speech becomes meaningless when the signal-to-noise ratio goes south, you know? Or, as they said very well in a song: "You can say what you want, but it doesn't change anything." Guess why. Trust, which in a sense is the opposite of confusion, is a vital part of that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blogging is different then advertising and should have different rules -- or NO rules.That 's the whole point .
Let me , the reader , know whether you 're doing blogging or advertising.I 'm all for free speech and all , but at the same time I believe in rules .
Free speech becomes meaningless when the signal-to-noise ratio goes south , you know ?
Or , as they said very well in a song : " You can say what you want , but it does n't change anything .
" Guess why .
Trust , which in a sense is the opposite of confusion , is a vital part of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blogging is different then advertising and should have different rules -- or NO rules.That's the whole point.
Let me, the reader, know whether you're doing blogging or advertising.I'm all for free speech and all, but at the same time I believe in rules.
Free speech becomes meaningless when the signal-to-noise ratio goes south, you know?
Or, as they said very well in a song: "You can say what you want, but it doesn't change anything.
" Guess why.
Trust, which in a sense is the opposite of confusion, is a vital part of that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423459</id>
	<title>stop crying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245689880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You wanted to replace the "old media", now stop crying. With power comes responsibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You wanted to replace the " old media " , now stop crying .
With power comes responsibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You wanted to replace the "old media", now stop crying.
With power comes responsibility.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423621</id>
	<title>It's Simple</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1245690360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Full disclosure is a common practice elsewhere and doesn't result in the negative consequences TFA claims people are worried about.</p><p>1. Post a disclaimer when you're referencing something that you have no involvement with.</p><p>2. Post an admission when you get something from someone you're writing about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Full disclosure is a common practice elsewhere and does n't result in the negative consequences TFA claims people are worried about.1 .
Post a disclaimer when you 're referencing something that you have no involvement with.2 .
Post an admission when you get something from someone you 're writing about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Full disclosure is a common practice elsewhere and doesn't result in the negative consequences TFA claims people are worried about.1.
Post a disclaimer when you're referencing something that you have no involvement with.2.
Post an admission when you get something from someone you're writing about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28436297</id>
	<title>Context</title>
	<author>jbdigriz</author>
	<datestamp>1245751800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is really pretty simple.</p><p>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."</p><p>What part of "no law" do people not understand? Despite this, the FTC has been regulating free speech for 40 years or so, if memory serves. Yet we put up with it. Corporate speakers  have long since made their deal with this devil (recent example to wit: Disney shill Miley Cyrus pimping the "cyberbullying" bill, ie. political speech about ostensible civility, but inevitably about polictical speech, in other words, precisely the thing the Founders thought necessary to forestall with a 1st amendment.)</p><p>It's complete B.S. You cannot legislate ethics, you cannot compel honesty, and you don't alter reality by passing a bill or promulgating a new regulation. Unless and until people start fighting in court and in the legislatrures this insanity will only get worse.</p><p>We now return you to your previously scheduled carping about Iranian journalists being rounded up. Don't worry,  of course it can't happen here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is really pretty simple .
" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ; or abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press ; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble , and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances .
" What part of " no law " do people not understand ?
Despite this , the FTC has been regulating free speech for 40 years or so , if memory serves .
Yet we put up with it .
Corporate speakers have long since made their deal with this devil ( recent example to wit : Disney shill Miley Cyrus pimping the " cyberbullying " bill , ie .
political speech about ostensible civility , but inevitably about polictical speech , in other words , precisely the thing the Founders thought necessary to forestall with a 1st amendment .
) It 's complete B.S .
You can not legislate ethics , you can not compel honesty , and you do n't alter reality by passing a bill or promulgating a new regulation .
Unless and until people start fighting in court and in the legislatrures this insanity will only get worse.We now return you to your previously scheduled carping about Iranian journalists being rounded up .
Do n't worry , of course it ca n't happen here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is really pretty simple.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"What part of "no law" do people not understand?
Despite this, the FTC has been regulating free speech for 40 years or so, if memory serves.
Yet we put up with it.
Corporate speakers  have long since made their deal with this devil (recent example to wit: Disney shill Miley Cyrus pimping the "cyberbullying" bill, ie.
political speech about ostensible civility, but inevitably about polictical speech, in other words, precisely the thing the Founders thought necessary to forestall with a 1st amendment.
)It's complete B.S.
You cannot legislate ethics, you cannot compel honesty, and you don't alter reality by passing a bill or promulgating a new regulation.
Unless and until people start fighting in court and in the legislatrures this insanity will only get worse.We now return you to your previously scheduled carping about Iranian journalists being rounded up.
Don't worry,  of course it can't happen here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423635</id>
	<title>Spend $2 to recover $1 - Gov't at work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245690420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Get used to it.  We have a Gov't now that will look for any loose scrap of spare change, and will be will to shake you by the ankles to find it.  I find it relatively despicable, but not in any way surprising.  Maybe if the Gov't took more of an interest in not impeding the trade of goods and services to the degree it does, high taxes, over-regulation [literally picking winners and losers, and running companies themselves at this point] that maybe, just maybe the recession we're in wouldn't be nearly as bad.  That maybe we'd have a market where I can find work that actually relates to my 2 year degree, instead of just picking up the 'anything that is available' kind of work that I am doing now.

<p>I'm not laying this on Obama in any way.  We've been on this path of gov't overspending, and over-intervening for awhile now.  Although Obama looks to maybe take these things to a whole new level, and he does have support in congress to do so.

I just find it interesting that they're going after things that are quite small, and will end up investing likely more resources than they get out of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get used to it .
We have a Gov't now that will look for any loose scrap of spare change , and will be will to shake you by the ankles to find it .
I find it relatively despicable , but not in any way surprising .
Maybe if the Gov't took more of an interest in not impeding the trade of goods and services to the degree it does , high taxes , over-regulation [ literally picking winners and losers , and running companies themselves at this point ] that maybe , just maybe the recession we 're in would n't be nearly as bad .
That maybe we 'd have a market where I can find work that actually relates to my 2 year degree , instead of just picking up the 'anything that is available ' kind of work that I am doing now .
I 'm not laying this on Obama in any way .
We 've been on this path of gov't overspending , and over-intervening for awhile now .
Although Obama looks to maybe take these things to a whole new level , and he does have support in congress to do so .
I just find it interesting that they 're going after things that are quite small , and will end up investing likely more resources than they get out of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get used to it.
We have a Gov't now that will look for any loose scrap of spare change, and will be will to shake you by the ankles to find it.
I find it relatively despicable, but not in any way surprising.
Maybe if the Gov't took more of an interest in not impeding the trade of goods and services to the degree it does, high taxes, over-regulation [literally picking winners and losers, and running companies themselves at this point] that maybe, just maybe the recession we're in wouldn't be nearly as bad.
That maybe we'd have a market where I can find work that actually relates to my 2 year degree, instead of just picking up the 'anything that is available' kind of work that I am doing now.
I'm not laying this on Obama in any way.
We've been on this path of gov't overspending, and over-intervening for awhile now.
Although Obama looks to maybe take these things to a whole new level, and he does have support in congress to do so.
I just find it interesting that they're going after things that are quite small, and will end up investing likely more resources than they get out of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424339</id>
	<title>standard reply</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1245692880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>========= please use s/email/blog/s below =============</p><p>your post advocates a</p><p>( ) technical (X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante</p><p>approach to fighting spam. your idea will not work. here is why it won't work. (one or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)</p><p>( ) spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses<br>( ) mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected<br>(X) no one will be able to find the guy or collect the money<br>(X) it is defenseless against brute force attacks<br>( ) it will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it<br>( ) users of email will not put up with it<br>( ) microsoft will not put up with it<br>( ) the police will not put up with it<br>(X) requires too much cooperation from spammers<br>( ) requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once<br>(X) many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers<br>( ) spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists<br>( ) anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business</p><p>specifically, your plan fails to account for</p><p>( ) laws expressly prohibiting it<br>(X) lack of centrally controlling authority for email<br>( ) open relays in foreign countries<br>( ) ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses<br>( ) asshats<br>(X) jurisdictional problems<br>(X) unpopularity of weird new taxes<br>( ) public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money<br>( ) huge existing software investment in smtp<br>( ) susceptibility of protocols other than smtp to attack<br>( ) willingness of users to install os patches received by email<br>( ) armies of worm riddled broadband-connected windows boxes<br>( ) eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches<br>( ) extreme profitability of spam<br>( ) joe jobs and/or identity theft<br>(X) technically illiterate politicians<br>( ) extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers<br>(X) dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves<br>( ) bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering<br>( ) outlook</p><p>and the following philosophical objections may also apply:</p><p>( ) ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical<br>( ) any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable<br>( ) smtp headers should not be the subject of legislation<br>( ) blacklists suck<br>( ) whitelists suck<br>( ) we should be able to talk about viagra without being censored<br>( ) countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud<br>( ) countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks<br>( ) countermeasures must work if phased in gradually<br>( ) sending email should be free<br>( ) why should we have to trust you and your servers?<br>( ) incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses<br>( ) feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem<br>( ) temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome<br>(X) i don't want the government reading my email<br>( ) killing them that way is not slow and painful enough</p><p>furthermore, this is what i think about you:</p><p>(X) sorry dude, but i don't think it would work.<br>( ) this is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.<br>( ) nice try, assh0le! i'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>= = = = = = = = = please use s/email/blog/s below = = = = = = = = = = = = = your post advocates a ( ) technical ( X ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilanteapproach to fighting spam .
your idea will not work .
here is why it wo n't work .
( one or more of the following may apply to your particular idea , and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed .
) ( ) spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( X ) no one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( X ) it is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) it will stop spam for two weeks and then we 'll be stuck with it ( ) users of email will not put up with it ( ) microsoft will not put up with it ( ) the police will not put up with it ( X ) requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( X ) many email users can not afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) spammers do n't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else 's career or businessspecifically , your plan fails to account for ( ) laws expressly prohibiting it ( X ) lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) open relays in foreign countries ( ) ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) asshats ( X ) jurisdictional problems ( X ) unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) huge existing software investment in smtp ( ) susceptibility of protocols other than smtp to attack ( ) willingness of users to install os patches received by email ( ) armies of worm riddled broadband-connected windows boxes ( ) eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) extreme profitability of spam ( ) joe jobs and/or identity theft ( X ) technically illiterate politicians ( ) extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( X ) dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) outlookand the following philosophical objections may also apply : ( ) ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with , yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) smtp headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) blacklists suck ( ) whitelists suck ( ) we should be able to talk about viagra without being censored ( ) countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) sending email should be free ( ) why should we have to trust you and your servers ?
( ) incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( X ) i do n't want the government reading my email ( ) killing them that way is not slow and painful enoughfurthermore , this is what i think about you : ( X ) sorry dude , but i do n't think it would work .
( ) this is a stupid idea , and you 're a stupid person for suggesting it .
( ) nice try , assh0le !
i 'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>========= please use s/email/blog/s below =============your post advocates a( ) technical (X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilanteapproach to fighting spam.
your idea will not work.
here is why it won't work.
(one or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.
)( ) spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses( ) mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected(X) no one will be able to find the guy or collect the money(X) it is defenseless against brute force attacks( ) it will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it( ) users of email will not put up with it( ) microsoft will not put up with it( ) the police will not put up with it(X) requires too much cooperation from spammers( ) requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once(X) many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers( ) spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists( ) anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or businessspecifically, your plan fails to account for( ) laws expressly prohibiting it(X) lack of centrally controlling authority for email( ) open relays in foreign countries( ) ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses( ) asshats(X) jurisdictional problems(X) unpopularity of weird new taxes( ) public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money( ) huge existing software investment in smtp( ) susceptibility of protocols other than smtp to attack( ) willingness of users to install os patches received by email( ) armies of worm riddled broadband-connected windows boxes( ) eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches( ) extreme profitability of spam( ) joe jobs and/or identity theft(X) technically illiterate politicians( ) extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers(X) dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves( ) bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering( ) outlookand the following philosophical objections may also apply:( ) ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical( ) any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable( ) smtp headers should not be the subject of legislation( ) blacklists suck( ) whitelists suck( ) we should be able to talk about viagra without being censored( ) countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud( ) countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks( ) countermeasures must work if phased in gradually( ) sending email should be free( ) why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses( ) feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem( ) temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome(X) i don't want the government reading my email( ) killing them that way is not slow and painful enoughfurthermore, this is what i think about you:(X) sorry dude, but i don't think it would work.
( ) this is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) nice try, assh0le!
i'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424279</id>
	<title>Will this get to the bottom of Groklaws $50k...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245692640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....she didn't say yes, but she didn't say no. Would this scheme increase transparency in such cases?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....she did n't say yes , but she did n't say no .
Would this scheme increase transparency in such cases ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....she didn't say yes, but she didn't say no.
Would this scheme increase transparency in such cases?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424375</id>
	<title>Re:stop crying</title>
	<author>mounthood</author>
	<datestamp>1245693000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You wanted to replace the "old media", now stop crying. With power comes responsibility.</p></div><p>So when actors endorsed $PRODUCT it was old media and OK, but now that it's bloggers we need to apply the same "old media" rules? Blogging is different then advertising and should have different rules -- or NO rules.</p><p>Free Speach is much more important then some FTC fear of everybody being confused on the internet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You wanted to replace the " old media " , now stop crying .
With power comes responsibility.So when actors endorsed $ PRODUCT it was old media and OK , but now that it 's bloggers we need to apply the same " old media " rules ?
Blogging is different then advertising and should have different rules -- or NO rules.Free Speach is much more important then some FTC fear of everybody being confused on the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You wanted to replace the "old media", now stop crying.
With power comes responsibility.So when actors endorsed $PRODUCT it was old media and OK, but now that it's bloggers we need to apply the same "old media" rules?
Blogging is different then advertising and should have different rules -- or NO rules.Free Speach is much more important then some FTC fear of everybody being confused on the internet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28428817</id>
	<title>Re:stop crying</title>
	<author>badasscat</author>
	<datestamp>1245664800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So when actors endorsed $PRODUCT it was old media and OK, but now that it's bloggers we need to apply the same "old media" rules? Blogging is different then advertising and should have different rules -- or NO rules.</i></p><p><i>Free Speach is much more important then some FTC fear of everybody being confused on the internet.</i></p><p>Are you honestly telling me that you cannot differentiate between an ad and payola?  And you don't see the obvious ethical difference?</p><p>If a blog wants to come out and say "buy X product, because they paid us to tell you to", that's totally fine.  That is an ad.</p><p>What is not fine is for them to say "buy X product because we like it!" when they secretly don't, but have been asked to say they do by the manufacturer that has showered them with gifts in return.</p><p>This is not a free speech issue, nor is there a damn thing that's confusing about it to anyone with half a brain.</p><p>And the only people that have anything to "fear" from it are those who are afraid of no longer being able to scam their readers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So when actors endorsed $ PRODUCT it was old media and OK , but now that it 's bloggers we need to apply the same " old media " rules ?
Blogging is different then advertising and should have different rules -- or NO rules.Free Speach is much more important then some FTC fear of everybody being confused on the internet.Are you honestly telling me that you can not differentiate between an ad and payola ?
And you do n't see the obvious ethical difference ? If a blog wants to come out and say " buy X product , because they paid us to tell you to " , that 's totally fine .
That is an ad.What is not fine is for them to say " buy X product because we like it !
" when they secretly do n't , but have been asked to say they do by the manufacturer that has showered them with gifts in return.This is not a free speech issue , nor is there a damn thing that 's confusing about it to anyone with half a brain.And the only people that have anything to " fear " from it are those who are afraid of no longer being able to scam their readers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So when actors endorsed $PRODUCT it was old media and OK, but now that it's bloggers we need to apply the same "old media" rules?
Blogging is different then advertising and should have different rules -- or NO rules.Free Speach is much more important then some FTC fear of everybody being confused on the internet.Are you honestly telling me that you cannot differentiate between an ad and payola?
And you don't see the obvious ethical difference?If a blog wants to come out and say "buy X product, because they paid us to tell you to", that's totally fine.
That is an ad.What is not fine is for them to say "buy X product because we like it!
" when they secretly don't, but have been asked to say they do by the manufacturer that has showered them with gifts in return.This is not a free speech issue, nor is there a damn thing that's confusing about it to anyone with half a brain.And the only people that have anything to "fear" from it are those who are afraid of no longer being able to scam their readers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424375</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1447208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1447208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1447208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1447208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1447208_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28430075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1447208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1447208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1447208_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1447208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28435171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1447208_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1447208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28425769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1447208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1447208_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28428915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1447208_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1447208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28425149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1447208_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28431033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1447208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28428817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1447208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1447208_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423609
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1447208_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1447208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28428769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1447208_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28429637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1447208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1447208_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1447208_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28430621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1447208.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423565
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1447208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424339
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1447208.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423621
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1447208.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28428769
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1447208.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28430621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28435171
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1447208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424543
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1447208.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28428915
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1447208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424375
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424633
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28429637
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28428817
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28431033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423609
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28430075
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28425149
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424789
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424657
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424101
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424081
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423997
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424127
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1447208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423757
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1447208.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28423765
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28425769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424115
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424697
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1447208.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1447208.28424295
</commentlist>
</conversation>
