<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_06_198237</id>
	<title>Google Will Star In New Dow Jones News Model</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1246871100000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Dow Jones is getting set to <a href="http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section\_id=556&amp;doc\_id=178804&amp;">launch a new aggregator</a>, akin to Google News, which will charge Web users for access to high-quality journalism.  'The Journal is one of the many newspapers you might buy in one place and with one payment [...] Watch for it,' said  Dow Jones CEO Les Hinton. However, rather than posing a threat to Google News, Andrew Keen, author and entrepreneur, says the aggregator will use Google as a critical partner. The only people who should be worried about this new model, says Keen, 'are all those lucky consumers who, over the last 15 years, have been getting their news for free.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Dow Jones is getting set to launch a new aggregator , akin to Google News , which will charge Web users for access to high-quality journalism .
'The Journal is one of the many newspapers you might buy in one place and with one payment [ ... ] Watch for it, ' said Dow Jones CEO Les Hinton .
However , rather than posing a threat to Google News , Andrew Keen , author and entrepreneur , says the aggregator will use Google as a critical partner .
The only people who should be worried about this new model , says Keen , 'are all those lucky consumers who , over the last 15 years , have been getting their news for free .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Dow Jones is getting set to launch a new aggregator, akin to Google News, which will charge Web users for access to high-quality journalism.
'The Journal is one of the many newspapers you might buy in one place and with one payment [...] Watch for it,' said  Dow Jones CEO Les Hinton.
However, rather than posing a threat to Google News, Andrew Keen, author and entrepreneur, says the aggregator will use Google as a critical partner.
The only people who should be worried about this new model, says Keen, 'are all those lucky consumers who, over the last 15 years, have been getting their news for free.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599889</id>
	<title>high-quality journalism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246875660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>which will charge Web users for access to high-quality journalism.</p></div></blockquote><p>Does high-quality journalism even exist anymore?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>which will charge Web users for access to high-quality journalism.Does high-quality journalism even exist anymore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>which will charge Web users for access to high-quality journalism.Does high-quality journalism even exist anymore?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28600169</id>
	<title>Anyone wants to start a bet...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246876920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone wants to start a bet on how long this "venture" will last<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....few weeks / months/ years<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/?</p><p>I'm betting on 6 months!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone wants to start a bet on how long this " venture " will last ....few weeks / months/ years / ? I 'm betting on 6 months !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone wants to start a bet on how long this "venture" will last ....few weeks / months/ years /?I'm betting on 6 months!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599991</id>
	<title>Targeting finance consumers?</title>
	<author>stefanlasiewski</author>
	<datestamp>1246876080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think Dow Jones is targeting the average consumer, but are targeting higher-end financial consumers, investors, financial advisers, etc. Maybe they are mostly "old" people<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>In the financial world, there are still plenty of vendors who charge for their content-- Barron's, financial newsletters, Bloomberg's "Professional" news products, etc.</p><p>Overall, these vendors generally (But not always) provide good-quality, in-depth articles and opinions. People will read their copy of Barron's like a student reads a book, complete with bookmarks and highlighters.</p><p>While the free sites are cheap, many of the news sites are filled with noise, the forums are filled with scams (The comments at finance.google.com are entertaining to read).</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think Dow Jones is targeting the average consumer , but are targeting higher-end financial consumers , investors , financial advisers , etc .
Maybe they are mostly " old " people ; ) In the financial world , there are still plenty of vendors who charge for their content-- Barron 's , financial newsletters , Bloomberg 's " Professional " news products , etc.Overall , these vendors generally ( But not always ) provide good-quality , in-depth articles and opinions .
People will read their copy of Barron 's like a student reads a book , complete with bookmarks and highlighters.While the free sites are cheap , many of the news sites are filled with noise , the forums are filled with scams ( The comments at finance.google.com are entertaining to read ) .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think Dow Jones is targeting the average consumer, but are targeting higher-end financial consumers, investors, financial advisers, etc.
Maybe they are mostly "old" people ;)In the financial world, there are still plenty of vendors who charge for their content-- Barron's, financial newsletters, Bloomberg's "Professional" news products, etc.Overall, these vendors generally (But not always) provide good-quality, in-depth articles and opinions.
People will read their copy of Barron's like a student reads a book, complete with bookmarks and highlighters.While the free sites are cheap, many of the news sites are filled with noise, the forums are filled with scams (The comments at finance.google.com are entertaining to read).
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28600609</id>
	<title>Sorry, there's no going back now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246879200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>News will now remain free. If the major providers put their shit behind pay-walls, one of two things will happen:</p><p>1) There's already a thriving eco-system of ad-financed blogs and other sites that basically do nothing but sift through, reword and extensively "quote" the stuff behind the login-prompts. These sites will just get bigger and stronger, eventually hiring more of their own staff. Since that's 90\% of what traditional newspapers have been doing since the dawn of time, there is more than enough precedent for this business model.</p><p>2) If the going get's really tough, Wikinews or some other major non-profit payer will become as hugely popular as Wikipedia is now. If Britannica or Brockhaus had made all their content available for free under a reasonably license for personal use, Wikipedia would probably not be where it is now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>News will now remain free .
If the major providers put their shit behind pay-walls , one of two things will happen : 1 ) There 's already a thriving eco-system of ad-financed blogs and other sites that basically do nothing but sift through , reword and extensively " quote " the stuff behind the login-prompts .
These sites will just get bigger and stronger , eventually hiring more of their own staff .
Since that 's 90 \ % of what traditional newspapers have been doing since the dawn of time , there is more than enough precedent for this business model.2 ) If the going get 's really tough , Wikinews or some other major non-profit payer will become as hugely popular as Wikipedia is now .
If Britannica or Brockhaus had made all their content available for free under a reasonably license for personal use , Wikipedia would probably not be where it is now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>News will now remain free.
If the major providers put their shit behind pay-walls, one of two things will happen:1) There's already a thriving eco-system of ad-financed blogs and other sites that basically do nothing but sift through, reword and extensively "quote" the stuff behind the login-prompts.
These sites will just get bigger and stronger, eventually hiring more of their own staff.
Since that's 90\% of what traditional newspapers have been doing since the dawn of time, there is more than enough precedent for this business model.2) If the going get's really tough, Wikinews or some other major non-profit payer will become as hugely popular as Wikipedia is now.
If Britannica or Brockhaus had made all their content available for free under a reasonably license for personal use, Wikipedia would probably not be where it is now.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28601307</id>
	<title>Yeah, good luck with that charging for news idea</title>
	<author>m509272</author>
	<datestamp>1246882920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "high quality" comment almost made me pee my pants.  Less optional stuff for me to read.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " high quality " comment almost made me pee my pants .
Less optional stuff for me to read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "high quality" comment almost made me pee my pants.
Less optional stuff for me to read.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28603719</id>
	<title>Yeah, well they give away their papers for free.</title>
	<author>zerofoo</author>
	<datestamp>1246898940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've had at least one newspaper delivered to my house every day for the last few years, and I have not paid for a single one.  My current free papers are the Wall Street Journal, and Financial Times.</p><p>It never fails - one way or another, I get free paper offers that usually last 6 months to a year.  Usually they come in the mail (both home and work), or from an offer through my credit card company.  The two local papers in my area occasionally drop their papers on my doorstep for a few months hoping to "hook" me.  Between the free national papers, and the local ones, there is no shortage of free newspapers at my house.</p><p>Eventually the freebie ends and the publisher wants me to pay - to which I say "no thanks".</p><p>During the dry spells of free papers, I get my news through many online sources, or radio, or TV.  Local news agencies have even started publishing news via free iPhone apps.</p><p>The end result of all of this is that there are just too many damn ways to get news for free.  The cat is out of the bag, the toothpaste is out of the tube, and Elvis has left the building.</p><p>Ad supported "free" news is here and there is no going back.</p><p>-ted</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had at least one newspaper delivered to my house every day for the last few years , and I have not paid for a single one .
My current free papers are the Wall Street Journal , and Financial Times.It never fails - one way or another , I get free paper offers that usually last 6 months to a year .
Usually they come in the mail ( both home and work ) , or from an offer through my credit card company .
The two local papers in my area occasionally drop their papers on my doorstep for a few months hoping to " hook " me .
Between the free national papers , and the local ones , there is no shortage of free newspapers at my house.Eventually the freebie ends and the publisher wants me to pay - to which I say " no thanks " .During the dry spells of free papers , I get my news through many online sources , or radio , or TV .
Local news agencies have even started publishing news via free iPhone apps.The end result of all of this is that there are just too many damn ways to get news for free .
The cat is out of the bag , the toothpaste is out of the tube , and Elvis has left the building.Ad supported " free " news is here and there is no going back.-ted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had at least one newspaper delivered to my house every day for the last few years, and I have not paid for a single one.
My current free papers are the Wall Street Journal, and Financial Times.It never fails - one way or another, I get free paper offers that usually last 6 months to a year.
Usually they come in the mail (both home and work), or from an offer through my credit card company.
The two local papers in my area occasionally drop their papers on my doorstep for a few months hoping to "hook" me.
Between the free national papers, and the local ones, there is no shortage of free newspapers at my house.Eventually the freebie ends and the publisher wants me to pay - to which I say "no thanks".During the dry spells of free papers, I get my news through many online sources, or radio, or TV.
Local news agencies have even started publishing news via free iPhone apps.The end result of all of this is that there are just too many damn ways to get news for free.
The cat is out of the bag, the toothpaste is out of the tube, and Elvis has left the building.Ad supported "free" news is here and there is no going back.-ted</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28600711</id>
	<title>Re:Quick!</title>
	<author>Bodhammer</author>
	<datestamp>1246879740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well the article did say "high quality" so I'm not sure this applies to them...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well the article did say " high quality " so I 'm not sure this applies to them.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well the article did say "high quality" so I'm not sure this applies to them...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28601677</id>
	<title>"for access to high-quality journalism."</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1246884840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone has to actually DO that, first.</p><p>Before Watergate, journalism was what it was. Objective. Sure, they could WISH their guys would win, but they wouldn't jeopardize their standards to SAY so.</p><p>Then Watergate: reporters "take down" a president.  Or so it appeared. Then all the sudden everyone signing up for journalism classes wants to "make a difference", which is NOT the intent of journalism at all.  It's to REPORT THE ACTUAL NEWS.</p><p>Now, the three networks, who couldn't be bothered to get on a plane and go see the troops unless a nuke went off, were climing over themselves to take Obama there.  Hey!  How about the umpteen trips McCaine (the bastard) took and you wouldn't go?</p><p>And more recently, one network decided to broadcast a'la Provda, right from the White House on the issue of Healthcare, with no dissenting opinion.  Da!</p><p>So yeah, if you can *find* high quality journalism, it's probably not American.  Here, they don't bother to turn on a radio to learn about Limbaugh, they just use the 20-year-old stuff left behind by other 'journalists' and use presumptions. He's not racist, he's not homophobic, he's not a woman hater.  But you'll ONLY KNOW THAT IF YOU LISTEN.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone has to actually DO that , first.Before Watergate , journalism was what it was .
Objective. Sure , they could WISH their guys would win , but they would n't jeopardize their standards to SAY so.Then Watergate : reporters " take down " a president .
Or so it appeared .
Then all the sudden everyone signing up for journalism classes wants to " make a difference " , which is NOT the intent of journalism at all .
It 's to REPORT THE ACTUAL NEWS.Now , the three networks , who could n't be bothered to get on a plane and go see the troops unless a nuke went off , were climing over themselves to take Obama there .
Hey ! How about the umpteen trips McCaine ( the bastard ) took and you would n't go ? And more recently , one network decided to broadcast a'la Provda , right from the White House on the issue of Healthcare , with no dissenting opinion .
Da ! So yeah , if you can * find * high quality journalism , it 's probably not American .
Here , they do n't bother to turn on a radio to learn about Limbaugh , they just use the 20-year-old stuff left behind by other 'journalists ' and use presumptions .
He 's not racist , he 's not homophobic , he 's not a woman hater .
But you 'll ONLY KNOW THAT IF YOU LISTEN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone has to actually DO that, first.Before Watergate, journalism was what it was.
Objective. Sure, they could WISH their guys would win, but they wouldn't jeopardize their standards to SAY so.Then Watergate: reporters "take down" a president.
Or so it appeared.
Then all the sudden everyone signing up for journalism classes wants to "make a difference", which is NOT the intent of journalism at all.
It's to REPORT THE ACTUAL NEWS.Now, the three networks, who couldn't be bothered to get on a plane and go see the troops unless a nuke went off, were climing over themselves to take Obama there.
Hey!  How about the umpteen trips McCaine (the bastard) took and you wouldn't go?And more recently, one network decided to broadcast a'la Provda, right from the White House on the issue of Healthcare, with no dissenting opinion.
Da!So yeah, if you can *find* high quality journalism, it's probably not American.
Here, they don't bother to turn on a radio to learn about Limbaugh, they just use the 20-year-old stuff left behind by other 'journalists' and use presumptions.
He's not racist, he's not homophobic, he's not a woman hater.
But you'll ONLY KNOW THAT IF YOU LISTEN.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599965</id>
	<title>He's going to pay Google right?</title>
	<author>Pearson</author>
	<datestamp>1246875960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"So Google -- which has never been in the content business -- will become the all-important vehicle that will deliver the punters to the Dow Jones walled garden of news."</i> <br> <br>
So if I understand this correctly, after railing about how Google was leeching off of others without paying a dime, Hinton is now going to use Google for his own profit without paying Google a dime...</htmltext>
<tokenext>" So Google -- which has never been in the content business -- will become the all-important vehicle that will deliver the punters to the Dow Jones walled garden of news .
" So if I understand this correctly , after railing about how Google was leeching off of others without paying a dime , Hinton is now going to use Google for his own profit without paying Google a dime.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"So Google -- which has never been in the content business -- will become the all-important vehicle that will deliver the punters to the Dow Jones walled garden of news.
"  
So if I understand this correctly, after railing about how Google was leeching off of others without paying a dime, Hinton is now going to use Google for his own profit without paying Google a dime...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28602135</id>
	<title>Re:Why should I pay when there are alternatives?</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1246887360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not only do they manage to be an excellent news outlet, they are also <b>the</b> word on business and financial matters (along with The Economist and Financial Times).
<br> <br>
Having subscribed to WSJ for a year or so, it was definitely worth having. Their forums are also very, very informative.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only do they manage to be an excellent news outlet , they are also the word on business and financial matters ( along with The Economist and Financial Times ) .
Having subscribed to WSJ for a year or so , it was definitely worth having .
Their forums are also very , very informative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only do they manage to be an excellent news outlet, they are also the word on business and financial matters (along with The Economist and Financial Times).
Having subscribed to WSJ for a year or so, it was definitely worth having.
Their forums are also very, very informative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599829</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246875300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only people who should be worried about this new model, says Keen, 'are all those lucky consumers who, over the last 15 years, have been getting their news for free.'"</p><p>So, everyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only people who should be worried about this new model , says Keen , 'are all those lucky consumers who , over the last 15 years , have been getting their news for free .
' " So , everyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only people who should be worried about this new model, says Keen, 'are all those lucky consumers who, over the last 15 years, have been getting their news for free.
'"So, everyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599805</id>
	<title>logic?</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1246875240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So lets see here.</p><p>Out of a ton of news aggregators, one is going to charge money for it? Clearly slashdot must feel threatened too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So lets see here.Out of a ton of news aggregators , one is going to charge money for it ?
Clearly slashdot must feel threatened too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So lets see here.Out of a ton of news aggregators, one is going to charge money for it?
Clearly slashdot must feel threatened too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28601477</id>
	<title>Why not charge for live news coverage?</title>
	<author>Co0Ps</author>
	<datestamp>1246883820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can imagine a newspaper pulling in money online by having free readers that can only read the body of news articles that are more than 30m-1hr old or possibly only short summaries of articles newer. And then having "premium subscribers" that pay a small fee to be able to read the news articles instantly with full coverage and analysis.</p><p>Possibly also having other premium features like ad free pages etc. Kinda like slashdot but more restricted.</p><p>Where are the weakness in this business model?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can imagine a newspaper pulling in money online by having free readers that can only read the body of news articles that are more than 30m-1hr old or possibly only short summaries of articles newer .
And then having " premium subscribers " that pay a small fee to be able to read the news articles instantly with full coverage and analysis.Possibly also having other premium features like ad free pages etc .
Kinda like slashdot but more restricted.Where are the weakness in this business model ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can imagine a newspaper pulling in money online by having free readers that can only read the body of news articles that are more than 30m-1hr old or possibly only short summaries of articles newer.
And then having "premium subscribers" that pay a small fee to be able to read the news articles instantly with full coverage and analysis.Possibly also having other premium features like ad free pages etc.
Kinda like slashdot but more restricted.Where are the weakness in this business model?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28600177</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246876920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not fair!  They print on very nice paper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not fair !
They print on very nice paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not fair!
They print on very nice paper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28612325</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds liike it's just a bigger walled garden</title>
	<author>quetzalblue</author>
	<datestamp>1246997700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; I'm not seeing what's so terribly innovative about this.
<br> <br>
As I watch the stock indexes crashing and zooming with absolutely no related "news" being reported <b> AT THE TIME</b>, I'm almost sure someone said something or, some related event occured that's not being reported. Sure enough, wait until tomorrow and get to read about why the market burped as it did the day before. <br> <br> Now, if you think about it a few seconds, you might wonder how the market got wind of this and you or I did not. I'm pretty sure it was either business insiders or better access to news. Either way, the average (stock investing shmuck) is clearly at a disadvantage. Timeliness of news would be worth paying for in this case. As for what Britney had for lunch the other day might be relegated to trivia that can be harvested when it finally shows up for free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I 'm not seeing what 's so terribly innovative about this .
As I watch the stock indexes crashing and zooming with absolutely no related " news " being reported AT THE TIME , I 'm almost sure someone said something or , some related event occured that 's not being reported .
Sure enough , wait until tomorrow and get to read about why the market burped as it did the day before .
Now , if you think about it a few seconds , you might wonder how the market got wind of this and you or I did not .
I 'm pretty sure it was either business insiders or better access to news .
Either way , the average ( stock investing shmuck ) is clearly at a disadvantage .
Timeliness of news would be worth paying for in this case .
As for what Britney had for lunch the other day might be relegated to trivia that can be harvested when it finally shows up for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I'm not seeing what's so terribly innovative about this.
As I watch the stock indexes crashing and zooming with absolutely no related "news" being reported  AT THE TIME, I'm almost sure someone said something or, some related event occured that's not being reported.
Sure enough, wait until tomorrow and get to read about why the market burped as it did the day before.
Now, if you think about it a few seconds, you might wonder how the market got wind of this and you or I did not.
I'm pretty sure it was either business insiders or better access to news.
Either way, the average (stock investing shmuck) is clearly at a disadvantage.
Timeliness of news would be worth paying for in this case.
As for what Britney had for lunch the other day might be relegated to trivia that can be harvested when it finally shows up for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28601047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599741</id>
	<title>First Post!</title>
	<author>Kruncher</author>
	<datestamp>1246874940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>First Post!

I like to get my news for free...</htmltext>
<tokenext>First Post !
I like to get my news for free.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First Post!
I like to get my news for free...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28600425</id>
	<title>informative do7)ldoll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246878360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">alike to reap CHAANEL, YOU MIGHT</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>alike to reap CHAANEL , YOU MIGHT [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>alike to reap CHAANEL, YOU MIGHT [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28601261</id>
	<title>You mean the Rupert Murdoch owned Dow Jones??</title>
	<author>technomom</author>
	<datestamp>1246882620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"High quality" news from the man who brings you Fox News, the New York Post, the Sun.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>" High quality " news from the man who brings you Fox News , the New York Post , the Sun.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"High quality" news from the man who brings you Fox News, the New York Post, the Sun.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28606551</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds friendly...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246974720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What an idiot, the music industry has raped the public by overcharging for recorded materials for years and now they cry!  The thing that makes me smile is MP3's will never go away and file sharing and music recording can never be stopped no matter how hard they try.  They know it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What an idiot , the music industry has raped the public by overcharging for recorded materials for years and now they cry !
The thing that makes me smile is MP3 's will never go away and file sharing and music recording can never be stopped no matter how hard they try .
They know it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What an idiot, the music industry has raped the public by overcharging for recorded materials for years and now they cry!
The thing that makes me smile is MP3's will never go away and file sharing and music recording can never be stopped no matter how hard they try.
They know it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28601417</id>
	<title>2 separate realities - dependent on wealth?</title>
	<author>yossarianuk</author>
	<datestamp>1246883400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe this will cause a split - between the people who pay for their news and the people who will read random (free) blog style news. <br> <br>
Imagine the difference in world view. The split and level of knowledge of 'real news' may depend on wealth - not an ideal situation<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..... However then again if Fox news charges and loses viewers this could help towards world peace....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this will cause a split - between the people who pay for their news and the people who will read random ( free ) blog style news .
Imagine the difference in world view .
The split and level of knowledge of 'real news ' may depend on wealth - not an ideal situation ..... However then again if Fox news charges and loses viewers this could help towards world peace... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe this will cause a split - between the people who pay for their news and the people who will read random (free) blog style news.
Imagine the difference in world view.
The split and level of knowledge of 'real news' may depend on wealth - not an ideal situation ..... However then again if Fox news charges and loses viewers this could help towards world peace....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28609415</id>
	<title>Re:Quick!</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1246986420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He said high-quality journalism.  I'm not sure if you're lumping MSN(BC) and Fox in with the high quality stuff, or if you're joking that they're going to be excluded from the new system.</p><p>Personally I'd just like to SEE some truly high quality journalism these days.  Woodward &amp; Bernstein should've started a school which banned press releases and PR or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He said high-quality journalism .
I 'm not sure if you 're lumping MSN ( BC ) and Fox in with the high quality stuff , or if you 're joking that they 're going to be excluded from the new system.Personally I 'd just like to SEE some truly high quality journalism these days .
Woodward &amp; Bernstein should 've started a school which banned press releases and PR or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He said high-quality journalism.
I'm not sure if you're lumping MSN(BC) and Fox in with the high quality stuff, or if you're joking that they're going to be excluded from the new system.Personally I'd just like to SEE some truly high quality journalism these days.
Woodward &amp; Bernstein should've started a school which banned press releases and PR or something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599925</id>
	<title>So let me get this straight...</title>
	<author>Itchyeyes</author>
	<datestamp>1246875780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hinton is saying that the only people who shouldn't be happy with his new business plan are the very people he needs to <i>voluntarily</i> pay for his service?  Somebody didn't think this through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hinton is saying that the only people who should n't be happy with his new business plan are the very people he needs to voluntarily pay for his service ?
Somebody did n't think this through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hinton is saying that the only people who shouldn't be happy with his new business plan are the very people he needs to voluntarily pay for his service?
Somebody didn't think this through.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28605119</id>
	<title>as Hunter S Thompson said...</title>
	<author>RMH101</author>
	<datestamp>1246959060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"The press is a gang of cruel faggots. Journalism is not a profession or a trade. It is a cheap catch-all for fuckoffs and misfits... a false doorway to the backside of life, a filthy piss-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just deep enough for a wino to curl up from the sidewalk and masturbate like a chimp in a zoo-cage." </i></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The press is a gang of cruel faggots .
Journalism is not a profession or a trade .
It is a cheap catch-all for fuckoffs and misfits... a false doorway to the backside of life , a filthy piss-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector , but just deep enough for a wino to curl up from the sidewalk and masturbate like a chimp in a zoo-cage .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The press is a gang of cruel faggots.
Journalism is not a profession or a trade.
It is a cheap catch-all for fuckoffs and misfits... a false doorway to the backside of life, a filthy piss-ridden little hole nailed off by the building inspector, but just deep enough for a wino to curl up from the sidewalk and masturbate like a chimp in a zoo-cage.
" </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599811</id>
	<title>Why should I pay when there are alternatives?</title>
	<author>whoever57</author>
	<datestamp>1246875300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The WSJ must provide some compelling, unique content otherwise this will just become another irrelevant website, with only a few viewers and even less revenue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The WSJ must provide some compelling , unique content otherwise this will just become another irrelevant website , with only a few viewers and even less revenue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The WSJ must provide some compelling, unique content otherwise this will just become another irrelevant website, with only a few viewers and even less revenue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28600495</id>
	<title>Yes, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246878660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but will they use slashcode?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but will they use slashcode ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but will they use slashcode?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599883</id>
	<title>Dont we already have free,high quality journalism?</title>
	<author>chrysrobyn</author>
	<datestamp>1246875600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Charging for high quality journalism?  Wonder what NPR will do to the competition?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Charging for high quality journalism ?
Wonder what NPR will do to the competition ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Charging for high quality journalism?
Wonder what NPR will do to the competition?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28615815</id>
	<title>"high-quality journalism" an new oxymoron</title>
	<author>Eric Elliott</author>
	<datestamp>1246970400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After &gt;30 years of journalism students being taught not to report the facts but to shape society, there is no high quality journalism.  As an oxymoron "high-quality journalism" will never be as popular as "common sense", nor as misunderstood.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After &gt; 30 years of journalism students being taught not to report the facts but to shape society , there is no high quality journalism .
As an oxymoron " high-quality journalism " will never be as popular as " common sense " , nor as misunderstood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After &gt;30 years of journalism students being taught not to report the facts but to shape society, there is no high quality journalism.
As an oxymoron "high-quality journalism" will never be as popular as "common sense", nor as misunderstood.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28602669</id>
	<title>Re:high-quality journalism</title>
	<author>FireFly9</author>
	<datestamp>1246891320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's very rare and hard to find! So much journalism today is to the left or to the right, they like to put there own spin on the news!! Therefore its not "high-quality" journalism. News is suppose to be free, NEVER EVER paid for!!! But in the meantime, Andrew Keen, "futue te ipsum" that's Latin for - You go fuck yourself!!!!!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's very rare and hard to find !
So much journalism today is to the left or to the right , they like to put there own spin on the news ! !
Therefore its not " high-quality " journalism .
News is suppose to be free , NEVER EVER paid for ! ! !
But in the meantime , Andrew Keen , " futue te ipsum " that 's Latin for - You go fuck yourself ! ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's very rare and hard to find!
So much journalism today is to the left or to the right, they like to put there own spin on the news!!
Therefore its not "high-quality" journalism.
News is suppose to be free, NEVER EVER paid for!!!
But in the meantime, Andrew Keen, "futue te ipsum" that's Latin for - You go fuck yourself!!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599889</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28607925</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1246980600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No one do anything newsworthy for a week.</p> </div><p>We tried that. It backfired when the networks re branded it as reality programming.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one do anything newsworthy for a week .
We tried that .
It backfired when the networks re branded it as reality programming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one do anything newsworthy for a week.
We tried that.
It backfired when the networks re branded it as reality programming.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599739</id>
	<title>first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246874940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28609449</id>
	<title>Re:I have an idea</title>
	<author>The Raven</author>
	<datestamp>1246986540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These strikes never work out. Every time we do nothing interesting for a week, the media just chooses some random person, labels them a 'celebrity', and writes about their boring life for a week. And for some reason, people pay money to read this gossip about ordinary folk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These strikes never work out .
Every time we do nothing interesting for a week , the media just chooses some random person , labels them a 'celebrity ' , and writes about their boring life for a week .
And for some reason , people pay money to read this gossip about ordinary folk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These strikes never work out.
Every time we do nothing interesting for a week, the media just chooses some random person, labels them a 'celebrity', and writes about their boring life for a week.
And for some reason, people pay money to read this gossip about ordinary folk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599973</id>
	<title>Really...</title>
	<author>Areyoukiddingme</author>
	<datestamp>1246875960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...which will charge Web users for access to high-quality journalism.</p></div><p>So...  they'll do quality fact checking back to prime sources, not Wikipedia?<br>
And... they'll report conflicts of interest not only among their subjects but with their corporate overlord?<br>
And... they'll report which moneyed interests stand to gain, every time?<br>
And... they'll never ever ever accept paid publicity or promotional materials and report them as news?<br>
And... they'll stop reporting what Britney Spears is doing?<br>
And... they'll never invent another word like Brangelina again?<br>
And... they'll carefully write political copy using neutral, non-loaded words and phrases, without bias?</p><p>
Color me skeptical...
</p><p>
I would laugh, but it's too farkin' pathetic.  "High-quality".  Right...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...which will charge Web users for access to high-quality journalism.So... they 'll do quality fact checking back to prime sources , not Wikipedia ?
And... they 'll report conflicts of interest not only among their subjects but with their corporate overlord ?
And... they 'll report which moneyed interests stand to gain , every time ?
And... they 'll never ever ever accept paid publicity or promotional materials and report them as news ?
And... they 'll stop reporting what Britney Spears is doing ?
And... they 'll never invent another word like Brangelina again ?
And... they 'll carefully write political copy using neutral , non-loaded words and phrases , without bias ?
Color me skeptical.. . I would laugh , but it 's too farkin ' pathetic .
" High-quality " . Right.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...which will charge Web users for access to high-quality journalism.So...  they'll do quality fact checking back to prime sources, not Wikipedia?
And... they'll report conflicts of interest not only among their subjects but with their corporate overlord?
And... they'll report which moneyed interests stand to gain, every time?
And... they'll never ever ever accept paid publicity or promotional materials and report them as news?
And... they'll stop reporting what Britney Spears is doing?
And... they'll never invent another word like Brangelina again?
And... they'll carefully write political copy using neutral, non-loaded words and phrases, without bias?
Color me skeptical...

I would laugh, but it's too farkin' pathetic.
"High-quality".  Right...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599751</id>
	<title>Quick!</title>
	<author>pHus10n</author>
	<datestamp>1246874940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone tell MSNBC, CNN, and Foxnews they're no longer viable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone tell MSNBC , CNN , and Foxnews they 're no longer viable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone tell MSNBC, CNN, and Foxnews they're no longer viable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599847</id>
	<title>Good pitch</title>
	<author>njfuzzy</author>
	<datestamp>1246875420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great marketing-- The only people who lose out are the consumers! That'll show the bastards!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great marketing-- The only people who lose out are the consumers !
That 'll show the bastards !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great marketing-- The only people who lose out are the consumers!
That'll show the bastards!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599823</id>
	<title>Welcome to the 21st century.</title>
	<author>seekret</author>
	<datestamp>1246875300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's about time something like this happened. I am sick of hearing all the talk from newspapers about how evil the Internet is because they can't sell papers anymore, now maybe that they have finally decided to use a payment method for online news they will shut up. Will I actually pay for any of it? Probably not, I don't care that much about the type of news that is always reported in physical papers and there are plenty resources for science and tech news around that are not as concerned with the bottom line as the Dow Jones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about time something like this happened .
I am sick of hearing all the talk from newspapers about how evil the Internet is because they ca n't sell papers anymore , now maybe that they have finally decided to use a payment method for online news they will shut up .
Will I actually pay for any of it ?
Probably not , I do n't care that much about the type of news that is always reported in physical papers and there are plenty resources for science and tech news around that are not as concerned with the bottom line as the Dow Jones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about time something like this happened.
I am sick of hearing all the talk from newspapers about how evil the Internet is because they can't sell papers anymore, now maybe that they have finally decided to use a payment method for online news they will shut up.
Will I actually pay for any of it?
Probably not, I don't care that much about the type of news that is always reported in physical papers and there are plenty resources for science and tech news around that are not as concerned with the bottom line as the Dow Jones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28600751</id>
	<title>Factiva</title>
	<author>RevWaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1246879920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dow Jones has been running a news search and database service called Factiva ( <a href="http://www.factiva.com/" title="factiva.com">http://www.factiva.com/</a> [factiva.com] ) since 1999. It is primarily used in business (although they do take credit cards) and is a serious news database - thousands of news sources fed directly to it, taxonomies, APIs, the works. Head to head it kicks Google News' ass. If Dow Jones is developing a consumer version it could have a number of advantages over Google News that users may be willing to shell out for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dow Jones has been running a news search and database service called Factiva ( http : //www.factiva.com/ [ factiva.com ] ) since 1999 .
It is primarily used in business ( although they do take credit cards ) and is a serious news database - thousands of news sources fed directly to it , taxonomies , APIs , the works .
Head to head it kicks Google News ' ass .
If Dow Jones is developing a consumer version it could have a number of advantages over Google News that users may be willing to shell out for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dow Jones has been running a news search and database service called Factiva ( http://www.factiva.com/ [factiva.com] ) since 1999.
It is primarily used in business (although they do take credit cards) and is a serious news database - thousands of news sources fed directly to it, taxonomies, APIs, the works.
Head to head it kicks Google News' ass.
If Dow Jones is developing a consumer version it could have a number of advantages over Google News that users may be willing to shell out for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599969</id>
	<title>oh WSJ....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246875960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they don't like it why not just slip a simple little robots.txt file in there and disable google's indexing? Or block everyone with a google.com as their http referrer?</p><p>I wonder how much traffic they would get then...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they do n't like it why not just slip a simple little robots.txt file in there and disable google 's indexing ?
Or block everyone with a google.com as their http referrer ? I wonder how much traffic they would get then.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they don't like it why not just slip a simple little robots.txt file in there and disable google's indexing?
Or block everyone with a google.com as their http referrer?I wonder how much traffic they would get then...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599783</id>
	<title>To be fair to the WSJ</title>
	<author>Greg\_D</author>
	<datestamp>1246875120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They not only started charging for their content, but stuck with it long after other companies had moved to horifically low paying internet ads.  The result is that people who subscribe to the WSJ online expect to pay for content, whereas people who use other news sites expect to get their news for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They not only started charging for their content , but stuck with it long after other companies had moved to horifically low paying internet ads .
The result is that people who subscribe to the WSJ online expect to pay for content , whereas people who use other news sites expect to get their news for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They not only started charging for their content, but stuck with it long after other companies had moved to horifically low paying internet ads.
The result is that people who subscribe to the WSJ online expect to pay for content, whereas people who use other news sites expect to get their news for free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28600565</id>
	<title>Very Interesting ...</title>
	<author>I'm\_Original</author>
	<datestamp>1246879020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... are all those lucky consumers who, over the last 15 years, have been getting their news for free."</p><p>I find your ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... wait, how much? </p><p>Forget it. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... are all those lucky consumers who , over the last 15 years , have been getting their news for free .
" I find your ideas intriguing , and would like to subscribe to your ... wait , how much ?
Forget it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" ... are all those lucky consumers who, over the last 15 years, have been getting their news for free.
"I find your ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your ... wait, how much?
Forget it. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28600309</id>
	<title>Re:Quick!</title>
	<author>AuMatar</author>
	<datestamp>1246877700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They said high quality.  That completely eliminates Fox, and throws grave doubts on the other two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They said high quality .
That completely eliminates Fox , and throws grave doubts on the other two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They said high quality.
That completely eliminates Fox, and throws grave doubts on the other two.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28600467</id>
	<title>We aren't getting it for free.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246878540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except consumers don't get the news for free.  We have to pay for our Internet connection (excluding those who steal it from their neighbors, wifi cafes are semi-free but you pay for it with the food you buy from them).</p><p>We also get bombarded with all those advertisements as well.</p><p>Stop crying newspapers.  It works just like cable TV has for so many years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except consumers do n't get the news for free .
We have to pay for our Internet connection ( excluding those who steal it from their neighbors , wifi cafes are semi-free but you pay for it with the food you buy from them ) .We also get bombarded with all those advertisements as well.Stop crying newspapers .
It works just like cable TV has for so many years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except consumers don't get the news for free.
We have to pay for our Internet connection (excluding those who steal it from their neighbors, wifi cafes are semi-free but you pay for it with the food you buy from them).We also get bombarded with all those advertisements as well.Stop crying newspapers.
It works just like cable TV has for so many years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599773</id>
	<title>Sounds friendly...</title>
	<author>tnk1</author>
	<datestamp>1246875060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, all you people getting value for free, you'd better watch out!  You have to pay us now... for what you already get for free!  Take that!</p><p>This guy must have been top of his class in Business School.  I will follow his career with much interest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , all you people getting value for free , you 'd better watch out !
You have to pay us now... for what you already get for free !
Take that ! This guy must have been top of his class in Business School .
I will follow his career with much interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, all you people getting value for free, you'd better watch out!
You have to pay us now... for what you already get for free!
Take that!This guy must have been top of his class in Business School.
I will follow his career with much interest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28601047</id>
	<title>Sounds liike it's just a bigger walled garden</title>
	<author>Orange Crush</author>
	<datestamp>1246881420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've tended to roll my eyes at the newspapers whining about Google "stealing" their content.  Changing their robots.txt is all it takes to keep Google's filthy little mits off their precious news sites.  Of course, that also kills all of the free traffic the Google drives to their site--and pay wall or no, no readers means no ad views, clicks, and subscriptions.</p><p>Now . . . what exactly is this new model being proposed?  Letting Google aggregate all the little news snippets and blurbs, but funneling all that traffic to a bigger walled garden containing multiple publications for a single fee is what this sounds like.  If they get enough people on board, it might work.  Or it might go the way of most non-porn paysites on the Internet and fail miserably.  (My money's still on the "fail miserably" end result.  I'm not seeing what's so terribly innovative about this.)</p><p>Newsgathering costs money, sure.  And there should be ways of making that money.  But it's going to take a bit more cleverness on the newspaper's parts than simply publishing online behind a pay wall.  If they can't figure that out, then they deserve to fail and be replaced with something that does figure it out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've tended to roll my eyes at the newspapers whining about Google " stealing " their content .
Changing their robots.txt is all it takes to keep Google 's filthy little mits off their precious news sites .
Of course , that also kills all of the free traffic the Google drives to their site--and pay wall or no , no readers means no ad views , clicks , and subscriptions.Now .
. .
what exactly is this new model being proposed ?
Letting Google aggregate all the little news snippets and blurbs , but funneling all that traffic to a bigger walled garden containing multiple publications for a single fee is what this sounds like .
If they get enough people on board , it might work .
Or it might go the way of most non-porn paysites on the Internet and fail miserably .
( My money 's still on the " fail miserably " end result .
I 'm not seeing what 's so terribly innovative about this .
) Newsgathering costs money , sure .
And there should be ways of making that money .
But it 's going to take a bit more cleverness on the newspaper 's parts than simply publishing online behind a pay wall .
If they ca n't figure that out , then they deserve to fail and be replaced with something that does figure it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've tended to roll my eyes at the newspapers whining about Google "stealing" their content.
Changing their robots.txt is all it takes to keep Google's filthy little mits off their precious news sites.
Of course, that also kills all of the free traffic the Google drives to their site--and pay wall or no, no readers means no ad views, clicks, and subscriptions.Now .
. .
what exactly is this new model being proposed?
Letting Google aggregate all the little news snippets and blurbs, but funneling all that traffic to a bigger walled garden containing multiple publications for a single fee is what this sounds like.
If they get enough people on board, it might work.
Or it might go the way of most non-porn paysites on the Internet and fail miserably.
(My money's still on the "fail miserably" end result.
I'm not seeing what's so terribly innovative about this.
)Newsgathering costs money, sure.
And there should be ways of making that money.
But it's going to take a bit more cleverness on the newspaper's parts than simply publishing online behind a pay wall.
If they can't figure that out, then they deserve to fail and be replaced with something that does figure it out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599877</id>
	<title>I like to have sex with hats!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246875600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"My name is Dax, and I had sex with a hat!  Dow Jones-a-phone, rubbin' on my bone!"</p><p>-Sir Paul McCartney, February, 2009</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" My name is Dax , and I had sex with a hat !
Dow Jones-a-phone , rubbin ' on my bone !
" -Sir Paul McCartney , February , 2009</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"My name is Dax, and I had sex with a hat!
Dow Jones-a-phone, rubbin' on my bone!
"-Sir Paul McCartney, February, 2009</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28609519</id>
	<title>Re:logic?</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1246986780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Out of a ton of news aggregators</p></div></blockquote><p>Centralised news aggregators, even.  Figuratively speaking, the personal aggregators on many peoples' desktops would amount to MORE than a "ton".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Out of a ton of news aggregatorsCentralised news aggregators , even .
Figuratively speaking , the personal aggregators on many peoples ' desktops would amount to MORE than a " ton " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Out of a ton of news aggregatorsCentralised news aggregators, even.
Figuratively speaking, the personal aggregators on many peoples' desktops would amount to MORE than a "ton".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28600269</id>
	<title>great idea ~</title>
	<author>nausea\_malvarma</author>
	<datestamp>1246877460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Customers will love paying for what they already get for free, because people love throwing money away, amirite?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Customers will love paying for what they already get for free , because people love throwing money away , amirite ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Customers will love paying for what they already get for free, because people love throwing money away, amirite?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599821</id>
	<title>ok then</title>
	<author>eclectro</author>
	<datestamp>1246875300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The only people who should be worried about this new model, says Keen, 'are all those lucky consumers who, over the last 15 years, have been getting their news for free.</p></div><p>I guess I will have to go back and get my news from the television for free. Oh well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only people who should be worried about this new model , says Keen , 'are all those lucky consumers who , over the last 15 years , have been getting their news for free.I guess I will have to go back and get my news from the television for free .
Oh well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only people who should be worried about this new model, says Keen, 'are all those lucky consumers who, over the last 15 years, have been getting their news for free.I guess I will have to go back and get my news from the television for free.
Oh well.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599867</id>
	<title>I have an idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246875540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe the public should start charging for making the news?  Those damn newsies having been leeching off the deeds and misdeeds of the ordinary public from the beginning.  Why should they get our stories for free?  If it wasn't for us, the news would just be bad fiction printed on cheap paper.  We should go on strike.  No one do anything newsworthy for a week.  That'll teach 'em!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the public should start charging for making the news ?
Those damn newsies having been leeching off the deeds and misdeeds of the ordinary public from the beginning .
Why should they get our stories for free ?
If it was n't for us , the news would just be bad fiction printed on cheap paper .
We should go on strike .
No one do anything newsworthy for a week .
That 'll teach 'em !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the public should start charging for making the news?
Those damn newsies having been leeching off the deeds and misdeeds of the ordinary public from the beginning.
Why should they get our stories for free?
If it wasn't for us, the news would just be bad fiction printed on cheap paper.
We should go on strike.
No one do anything newsworthy for a week.
That'll teach 'em!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28600221</id>
	<title>Did anyone else...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246877160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...read the first two words of this article as "George Will"?

I gotta stop watching ABC News so much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...read the first two words of this article as " George Will " ?
I got ta stop watching ABC News so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...read the first two words of this article as "George Will"?
I gotta stop watching ABC News so much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28600787</id>
	<title>Re:Really...</title>
	<author>Achromatic1978</author>
	<datestamp>1246880040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah. Because none of those have ever been a problem with other news sources, be they free or community, or blogger, or otherwise? I mean, just look at WP...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
Because none of those have ever been a problem with other news sources , be they free or community , or blogger , or otherwise ?
I mean , just look at WP.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
Because none of those have ever been a problem with other news sources, be they free or community, or blogger, or otherwise?
I mean, just look at WP...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28600049</id>
	<title>The Missing Link</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1246876320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Dow Jones is getting set to launch a new aggregator, akin to Google News, which will charge Web users for access to high-quality journalism. </i></p><p>Great idea.</p><p>The only problem is a complete lack of high quality journalism today.</p><p>Since they plan to aggregate instead of provide something new, the idea is dead before it began.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dow Jones is getting set to launch a new aggregator , akin to Google News , which will charge Web users for access to high-quality journalism .
Great idea.The only problem is a complete lack of high quality journalism today.Since they plan to aggregate instead of provide something new , the idea is dead before it began .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dow Jones is getting set to launch a new aggregator, akin to Google News, which will charge Web users for access to high-quality journalism.
Great idea.The only problem is a complete lack of high quality journalism today.Since they plan to aggregate instead of provide something new, the idea is dead before it began.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28600343</id>
	<title>Google news is beta/noncommercial (no ads)</title>
	<author>Xtifr</author>
	<datestamp>1246877880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the things that's helped Google get away with aggregating other people's contents on their news service is the fact that Google News is non-commercial, doesn't run ads, and doesn't represent a revenue stream for Google.  And they still got sued several times.  If Dow Jones wants to do something similar, but charge for it, they may find themselves facing a whole stream of lawsuits, and may find that their defense is a lot less effective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the things that 's helped Google get away with aggregating other people 's contents on their news service is the fact that Google News is non-commercial , does n't run ads , and does n't represent a revenue stream for Google .
And they still got sued several times .
If Dow Jones wants to do something similar , but charge for it , they may find themselves facing a whole stream of lawsuits , and may find that their defense is a lot less effective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the things that's helped Google get away with aggregating other people's contents on their news service is the fact that Google News is non-commercial, doesn't run ads, and doesn't represent a revenue stream for Google.
And they still got sued several times.
If Dow Jones wants to do something similar, but charge for it, they may find themselves facing a whole stream of lawsuits, and may find that their defense is a lot less effective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_198237_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28602669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_198237_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28607925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_198237_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28600711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_198237_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28609415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_198237_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28609449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_198237_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28605119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_198237_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28612325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28601047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_198237_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28609519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_198237_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28600177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_198237_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28600787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_198237_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28606551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_198237_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28602135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_06_198237_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28600309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_198237.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28600609
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_198237.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28605119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28602669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_198237.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28601047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28612325
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_198237.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28606551
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_198237.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28607925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28600177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28609449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_198237.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28600221
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_198237.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28609415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28600309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28600711
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_198237.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28601477
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_198237.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28600787
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_198237.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599883
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_198237.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599965
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_198237.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28602135
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_198237.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28601677
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_198237.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599783
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_198237.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28609519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_06_198237.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_06_198237.28599925
</commentlist>
</conversation>
