<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_13_0622226</id>
	<title>Battle.net Accounts Becoming Mandatory For <em>WoW</em></title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1255462020000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader tips news that Blizzard will be requiring all <em>World of Warcraft</em> players to use <a href="http://us.blizzard.com/blizzcon/recaps/battlenet-panel.xml?rhtml=y">Battle.net</a> accounts to log into the game <a href="http://blue.mmo-champion.com/1/20433765714-wow-battlenet-conversion-coming.html">starting on November 11th</a>. After that time, players who don't switch will be unable to play the game. Some time after the transition is complete, players will be able to "participate in cross-realm chat in <em>World of Warcraft</em>, create real-life friends lists, and communicate across different games." More details on the new Battle.net and what it will do are available in our Blizzcon <a href="http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/08/24/1317227/Blizzcon-2009-Wrap-Up">wrap-up</a> and <a href="http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/09/08/24/1552233/Blizzard-Answers-Your-Questions-and-More">interviews</a> from August. Naturally, the idea that the new Battle.net is getting closer to deployment has sparked speculation that the <em>StarCraft II</em> beta <a href="http://starcraft.incgamers.com/blog/comments/starcraft-ii-beta-imminent/">might come along soon</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader tips news that Blizzard will be requiring all World of Warcraft players to use Battle.net accounts to log into the game starting on November 11th .
After that time , players who do n't switch will be unable to play the game .
Some time after the transition is complete , players will be able to " participate in cross-realm chat in World of Warcraft , create real-life friends lists , and communicate across different games .
" More details on the new Battle.net and what it will do are available in our Blizzcon wrap-up and interviews from August .
Naturally , the idea that the new Battle.net is getting closer to deployment has sparked speculation that the StarCraft II beta might come along soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader tips news that Blizzard will be requiring all World of Warcraft players to use Battle.net accounts to log into the game starting on November 11th.
After that time, players who don't switch will be unable to play the game.
Some time after the transition is complete, players will be able to "participate in cross-realm chat in World of Warcraft, create real-life friends lists, and communicate across different games.
" More details on the new Battle.net and what it will do are available in our Blizzcon wrap-up and interviews from August.
Naturally, the idea that the new Battle.net is getting closer to deployment has sparked speculation that the StarCraft II beta might come along soon.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731213</id>
	<title>Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA</title>
	<author>Totenglocke</author>
	<datestamp>1255445520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And if Blizzard goes to digital distribution only, I will stop being a customer.  I have every Blizzard game, but I'm considering not buying Starcraft 2 because you have to activate it online (meaning that Blizzard can take away your right to install the game at any time they choose).</p><p>DRM, online activation, and digital distribution will eventually be prevalent enough that I stop gaming.  Explain how that's supposed to make companies money?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And if Blizzard goes to digital distribution only , I will stop being a customer .
I have every Blizzard game , but I 'm considering not buying Starcraft 2 because you have to activate it online ( meaning that Blizzard can take away your right to install the game at any time they choose ) .DRM , online activation , and digital distribution will eventually be prevalent enough that I stop gaming .
Explain how that 's supposed to make companies money ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if Blizzard goes to digital distribution only, I will stop being a customer.
I have every Blizzard game, but I'm considering not buying Starcraft 2 because you have to activate it online (meaning that Blizzard can take away your right to install the game at any time they choose).DRM, online activation, and digital distribution will eventually be prevalent enough that I stop gaming.
Explain how that's supposed to make companies money?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729347</id>
	<title>Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255467120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a while, Blizzard had little keygen token thingies that would generate a 1-time password for you to log in to your World of Warcraft account.</p><p>I wonder if these will cease to function after the migration to Battle.net accounts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a while , Blizzard had little keygen token thingies that would generate a 1-time password for you to log in to your World of Warcraft account.I wonder if these will cease to function after the migration to Battle.net accounts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a while, Blizzard had little keygen token thingies that would generate a 1-time password for you to log in to your World of Warcraft account.I wonder if these will cease to function after the migration to Battle.net accounts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731295</id>
	<title>Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA</title>
	<author>ildon</author>
	<datestamp>1255446000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference is Blizzard currently has no delusions of destroying the game publishing companies like Valve did. Battle.net 2.0 is more like their own version of Facebook for their own games only.</p><p>I wouldn't expect to ever be able to buy a non-Blizzard game on Battle.net, and I wouldn't expect any more interoperability than Facebook and Myspace currently have (i.e. none). I could always be wrong, though!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference is Blizzard currently has no delusions of destroying the game publishing companies like Valve did .
Battle.net 2.0 is more like their own version of Facebook for their own games only.I would n't expect to ever be able to buy a non-Blizzard game on Battle.net , and I would n't expect any more interoperability than Facebook and Myspace currently have ( i.e .
none ) . I could always be wrong , though !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference is Blizzard currently has no delusions of destroying the game publishing companies like Valve did.
Battle.net 2.0 is more like their own version of Facebook for their own games only.I wouldn't expect to ever be able to buy a non-Blizzard game on Battle.net, and I wouldn't expect any more interoperability than Facebook and Myspace currently have (i.e.
none). I could always be wrong, though!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29738549</id>
	<title>here's hoping</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1255434120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it fails miserably.</p><p>This is why stopped playing WoW and won't be picking up SCII.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it fails miserably.This is why stopped playing WoW and wo n't be picking up SCII .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it fails miserably.This is why stopped playing WoW and won't be picking up SCII.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29735325</id>
	<title>Re:Misconceptions....</title>
	<author>space\_jake</author>
	<datestamp>1255464360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Blizzard Authenticator makes getting hacked nearly impossible.  You can't transfer characters between accounts unless they're under the same battle.net account.  If your guild leader kicks you for not adding them to your friends list they did you a favor.  I've never seen anyone get banned for being a douche in public channels, I've seen the same people being douches for years and I know I report them daily.  I've seen people get banned from the forums for such but they only got banned from the forums not the game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blizzard Authenticator makes getting hacked nearly impossible .
You ca n't transfer characters between accounts unless they 're under the same battle.net account .
If your guild leader kicks you for not adding them to your friends list they did you a favor .
I 've never seen anyone get banned for being a douche in public channels , I 've seen the same people being douches for years and I know I report them daily .
I 've seen people get banned from the forums for such but they only got banned from the forums not the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blizzard Authenticator makes getting hacked nearly impossible.
You can't transfer characters between accounts unless they're under the same battle.net account.
If your guild leader kicks you for not adding them to your friends list they did you a favor.
I've never seen anyone get banned for being a douche in public channels, I've seen the same people being douches for years and I know I report them daily.
I've seen people get banned from the forums for such but they only got banned from the forums not the game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29732033</id>
	<title>Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA</title>
	<author>Aklyon</author>
	<datestamp>1255449480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Blizzard's own digital distribution network, similar to Valve's Steam.</p></div><p>It'll be nice to see some competition.</p></div><p> There's already Impulse. doesn't that count as compition?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Blizzard 's own digital distribution network , similar to Valve 's Steam.It 'll be nice to see some competition .
There 's already Impulse .
does n't that count as compition ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blizzard's own digital distribution network, similar to Valve's Steam.It'll be nice to see some competition.
There's already Impulse.
doesn't that count as compition?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29732233</id>
	<title>It worked for me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255450260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I havent bought a single valve game since steam came out.... And i was really looking forward to some of them.</p><p>Rockstar jumped on the wagon &amp; i stopped buying their games too. Keep it up guys and all I'll have left is Bethesda &amp; the Indies.</p><p>I am saving a small fortune now that my game buying habits have been almost completely eliminated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I havent bought a single valve game since steam came out.... And i was really looking forward to some of them.Rockstar jumped on the wagon &amp; i stopped buying their games too .
Keep it up guys and all I 'll have left is Bethesda &amp; the Indies.I am saving a small fortune now that my game buying habits have been almost completely eliminated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I havent bought a single valve game since steam came out.... And i was really looking forward to some of them.Rockstar jumped on the wagon &amp; i stopped buying their games too.
Keep it up guys and all I'll have left is Bethesda &amp; the Indies.I am saving a small fortune now that my game buying habits have been almost completely eliminated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29741499</id>
	<title>Regarding 'cross-realm chat'</title>
	<author>sydbarrett74</author>
	<datestamp>1255460580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Meh. Cross-realm chat is not much of a must-have for me (if I have any friends/family who play on different servers, I can always chat them up via AIM or GTalk). Cross-realm <em>play</em> would be awesome and game-changing. I would love to go into LFG/LFM and have hundreds or thousands of potential players with whom to group up for an instance. It gets really old waiting for hours in LFG to run even recent instances because nobody is on my server at that moment. And high-&gt;low pop realm transfers are a poor fix which merely mask a more fundamental problem. Why can't MMO publishers ditch the whole shard/realm/server paradigm (q.v. <a href="http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/10/11/1618210/The-Problem-of-Shards-Servers-and-Queues-In-MMOs" title="slashdot.org">this article</a> [slashdot.org])?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh .
Cross-realm chat is not much of a must-have for me ( if I have any friends/family who play on different servers , I can always chat them up via AIM or GTalk ) .
Cross-realm play would be awesome and game-changing .
I would love to go into LFG/LFM and have hundreds or thousands of potential players with whom to group up for an instance .
It gets really old waiting for hours in LFG to run even recent instances because nobody is on my server at that moment .
And high- &gt; low pop realm transfers are a poor fix which merely mask a more fundamental problem .
Why ca n't MMO publishers ditch the whole shard/realm/server paradigm ( q.v .
this article [ slashdot.org ] ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meh.
Cross-realm chat is not much of a must-have for me (if I have any friends/family who play on different servers, I can always chat them up via AIM or GTalk).
Cross-realm play would be awesome and game-changing.
I would love to go into LFG/LFM and have hundreds or thousands of potential players with whom to group up for an instance.
It gets really old waiting for hours in LFG to run even recent instances because nobody is on my server at that moment.
And high-&gt;low pop realm transfers are a poor fix which merely mask a more fundamental problem.
Why can't MMO publishers ditch the whole shard/realm/server paradigm (q.v.
this article [slashdot.org])?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729311</id>
	<title>Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255466460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It means your WoW guild leader can see that you are online playing Starcraft II instead of being in WoW during raid time. And that is 50 dkp minus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It means your WoW guild leader can see that you are online playing Starcraft II instead of being in WoW during raid time .
And that is 50 dkp minus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It means your WoW guild leader can see that you are online playing Starcraft II instead of being in WoW during raid time.
And that is 50 dkp minus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731057</id>
	<title>Free for now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255444560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but how long until they start requiring pay-per-play.</p><p>1) Sell game to gullible gamers.</p><p>2) Get them addicted to the game.</p><p>3) After a while, make them pay additional fees to get to use what they already bought.</p><p>4) ??? </p><p>5) Profit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but how long until they start requiring pay-per-play.1 ) Sell game to gullible gamers.2 ) Get them addicted to the game.3 ) After a while , make them pay additional fees to get to use what they already bought.4 ) ? ? ?
5 ) Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but how long until they start requiring pay-per-play.1) Sell game to gullible gamers.2) Get them addicted to the game.3) After a while, make them pay additional fees to get to use what they already bought.4) ???
5) Profit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731257</id>
	<title>Smells like a setup.</title>
	<author>H0NGK0NGPH00EY</author>
	<datestamp>1255445700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, am I still supposed to believe that Blizzard won't charge a monthly fee to play Starcraft II online?  On the same exact network, with basically the same set of services as millions of monthly-fee WoW-ers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , am I still supposed to believe that Blizzard wo n't charge a monthly fee to play Starcraft II online ?
On the same exact network , with basically the same set of services as millions of monthly-fee WoW-ers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, am I still supposed to believe that Blizzard won't charge a monthly fee to play Starcraft II online?
On the same exact network, with basically the same set of services as millions of monthly-fee WoW-ers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29738523</id>
	<title>Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1255434000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until day two when he sees everyone in the guild is playing and needs to offer 1000 dkp to get anyone to join a raid.</p><p>And he only does that until he has saved enough allowance to buy SCII</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until day two when he sees everyone in the guild is playing and needs to offer 1000 dkp to get anyone to join a raid.And he only does that until he has saved enough allowance to buy SCII</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until day two when he sees everyone in the guild is playing and needs to offer 1000 dkp to get anyone to join a raid.And he only does that until he has saved enough allowance to buy SCII</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29733017</id>
	<title>Re:Misconceptions....</title>
	<author>cigawoot</author>
	<datestamp>1255454040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"And if you don't put him on he'll kick you from the guild."

If I was in a guild that would gkick a member because I refused to put him on my Battle.net friends list, I would be evaluating if I really wanted to be in that guild.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" And if you do n't put him on he 'll kick you from the guild .
" If I was in a guild that would gkick a member because I refused to put him on my Battle.net friends list , I would be evaluating if I really wanted to be in that guild .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And if you don't put him on he'll kick you from the guild.
"

If I was in a guild that would gkick a member because I refused to put him on my Battle.net friends list, I would be evaluating if I really wanted to be in that guild.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731873</id>
	<title>Re:Misconceptions....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255448880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about this:<br>1. It is exactly equally hard. In the future, it will mean one less login to remember if you purches SC2 or Diablo3 or WC4 or whatever the hell else comes out. Pre-emptive reduced future difficulty can be seen as "easier".<br>2. I do know. For a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/view\_play\_list?p=E78D1948B6A410D5" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">fact.</a> [youtube.com]<br>3. n/a<br>4. I fail to see how it's "subjective" to state that "not doing things that will get you banned will help you not get banned".<br>5. n/a<br>6. Yes, all those naive people who don't think the world trade center was destroyed by a zionist conspiracy are so funny. Oh wait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about this : 1 .
It is exactly equally hard .
In the future , it will mean one less login to remember if you purches SC2 or Diablo3 or WC4 or whatever the hell else comes out .
Pre-emptive reduced future difficulty can be seen as " easier " .2 .
I do know .
For a fact .
[ youtube.com ] 3. n/a4 .
I fail to see how it 's " subjective " to state that " not doing things that will get you banned will help you not get banned " .5. n/a6. Yes , all those naive people who do n't think the world trade center was destroyed by a zionist conspiracy are so funny .
Oh wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about this:1.
It is exactly equally hard.
In the future, it will mean one less login to remember if you purches SC2 or Diablo3 or WC4 or whatever the hell else comes out.
Pre-emptive reduced future difficulty can be seen as "easier".2.
I do know.
For a fact.
[youtube.com]3. n/a4.
I fail to see how it's "subjective" to state that "not doing things that will get you banned will help you not get banned".5. n/a6. Yes, all those naive people who don't think the world trade center was destroyed by a zionist conspiracy are so funny.
Oh wait.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729611</id>
	<title>Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255428300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Whoever the executive was that pioneered this (at the cost of delaying SC2) is getting a phat performance bonus next year</p></div><p>   Dear Mr. Hadlock</p><p>In the future, please refrain from requesting performance bonuses on public forums.</p><p>M.Morhaime.</p><p>P.S.: Your bonus will be based on your Arena ranking, as every other director's.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoever the executive was that pioneered this ( at the cost of delaying SC2 ) is getting a phat performance bonus next year Dear Mr. HadlockIn the future , please refrain from requesting performance bonuses on public forums.M.Morhaime.P.S .
: Your bonus will be based on your Arena ranking , as every other director 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoever the executive was that pioneered this (at the cost of delaying SC2) is getting a phat performance bonus next year   Dear Mr. HadlockIn the future, please refrain from requesting performance bonuses on public forums.M.Morhaime.P.S.
: Your bonus will be based on your Arena ranking, as every other director's.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29742823</id>
	<title>MCP</title>
	<author>rogerdr</author>
	<datestamp>1255523280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Welcome to the Game Grid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to the Game Grid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to the Game Grid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29730739</id>
	<title>Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA</title>
	<author>poetmatt</author>
	<datestamp>1255442400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>please. community is not an excuse for DRM. DRM doesn't create community, either.</p><p>This is all about their lockdown attempts. *LOTS* of people can and are bitching about it, and rightly so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>please .
community is not an excuse for DRM .
DRM does n't create community , either.This is all about their lockdown attempts .
* LOTS * of people can and are bitching about it , and rightly so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>please.
community is not an excuse for DRM.
DRM doesn't create community, either.This is all about their lockdown attempts.
*LOTS* of people can and are bitching about it, and rightly so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731079</id>
	<title>Re:Misconceptions....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255444740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And here are your misconceptions that I wish to clear up:</p><p>1. completely subjective, and how exactly does logging in need to be made easier? it's currently hard?<br>2. afaik = I don't know<br>3. fair enough<br>4. subjective<br>5. fair enough<br>6. naive people are even funnier</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And here are your misconceptions that I wish to clear up : 1. completely subjective , and how exactly does logging in need to be made easier ?
it 's currently hard ? 2 .
afaik = I do n't know3 .
fair enough4 .
subjective5. fair enough6 .
naive people are even funnier</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here are your misconceptions that I wish to clear up:1. completely subjective, and how exactly does logging in need to be made easier?
it's currently hard?2.
afaik = I don't know3.
fair enough4.
subjective5. fair enough6.
naive people are even funnier</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29730543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731593</id>
	<title>Kinda like MUDs 15 years ago then?</title>
	<author>Domini</author>
	<datestamp>1255447620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember the addition of the inter-mud libs that players could to inter-mud tells and inter-mud mail to one another. Never really got used much tho as far as I recall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember the addition of the inter-mud libs that players could to inter-mud tells and inter-mud mail to one another .
Never really got used much tho as far as I recall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember the addition of the inter-mud libs that players could to inter-mud tells and inter-mud mail to one another.
Never really got used much tho as far as I recall.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29738477</id>
	<title>Re:Misconceptions....</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1255433760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) I don't like being treated like I'm a thief.</p><p>2) Not ahving you guild leader on battle net friends will cost you either in scheduling, or dkp.</p><p>3) Yes, it will.</p><p>4) I think you mean don't let anyone say you are botting, cheating or scamming. It's not like you get to defend yourself.</p><p>5) Separate issue.</p><p>6) Yes they are, just like apologists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) I do n't like being treated like I 'm a thief.2 ) Not ahving you guild leader on battle net friends will cost you either in scheduling , or dkp.3 ) Yes , it will.4 ) I think you mean do n't let anyone say you are botting , cheating or scamming .
It 's not like you get to defend yourself.5 ) Separate issue.6 ) Yes they are , just like apologists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) I don't like being treated like I'm a thief.2) Not ahving you guild leader on battle net friends will cost you either in scheduling, or dkp.3) Yes, it will.4) I think you mean don't let anyone say you are botting, cheating or scamming.
It's not like you get to defend yourself.5) Separate issue.6) Yes they are, just like apologists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29730543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731891</id>
	<title>Re:Misconceptions....</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1255448940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Battle.net accounts are actually more convenient, a single login for all your Blizzard titles will make things easier."</p><p>For people hacking your accounts.</p><p>"As far as I know, unless your guild leader is on your battle.net friends, they won't be able to see you play Starcraft 2."</p><p>And if you don't put him on he'll kick you from the guild.</p><p>"If you get banned from World of Warcraft, it will NOT ban your from other games, including other WoW accounts on your battle.net account."</p><p>Which is a lie, they already do that on the forums.</p><p>"Don't bot, cheat, scam people, stay stupid shit in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/2 and you won't get banned."</p><p>False. They can and have banned you if they don't like what you say - it doesn't matter what you actually say. You can even get a ban for stupid stuff like posting to a thread which "is too old"</p><p>"You can add multiple World of Warcraft accounts to a single Battle.net account."</p><p>And you can make more battlenet accounts to keep it separated and keep hacking risks down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Battle.net accounts are actually more convenient , a single login for all your Blizzard titles will make things easier .
" For people hacking your accounts .
" As far as I know , unless your guild leader is on your battle.net friends , they wo n't be able to see you play Starcraft 2 .
" And if you do n't put him on he 'll kick you from the guild .
" If you get banned from World of Warcraft , it will NOT ban your from other games , including other WoW accounts on your battle.net account .
" Which is a lie , they already do that on the forums .
" Do n't bot , cheat , scam people , stay stupid shit in /2 and you wo n't get banned. " False .
They can and have banned you if they do n't like what you say - it does n't matter what you actually say .
You can even get a ban for stupid stuff like posting to a thread which " is too old " " You can add multiple World of Warcraft accounts to a single Battle.net account .
" And you can make more battlenet accounts to keep it separated and keep hacking risks down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Battle.net accounts are actually more convenient, a single login for all your Blizzard titles will make things easier.
"For people hacking your accounts.
"As far as I know, unless your guild leader is on your battle.net friends, they won't be able to see you play Starcraft 2.
"And if you don't put him on he'll kick you from the guild.
"If you get banned from World of Warcraft, it will NOT ban your from other games, including other WoW accounts on your battle.net account.
"Which is a lie, they already do that on the forums.
"Don't bot, cheat, scam people, stay stupid shit in /2 and you won't get banned."False.
They can and have banned you if they don't like what you say - it doesn't matter what you actually say.
You can even get a ban for stupid stuff like posting to a thread which "is too old""You can add multiple World of Warcraft accounts to a single Battle.net account.
"And you can make more battlenet accounts to keep it separated and keep hacking risks down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29730543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731021</id>
	<title>Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA</title>
	<author>soupforare</author>
	<datestamp>1255444320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure Valve is immune to the heat generated from some of the other DD services.  Direct2Drive's recent per-week sales are now over.  The buzz generated on slickdeals and the gamer forums I frequent was pretty high.  I log in to steam last night and lo, they've got an extremely similar per-week deal going.  It's even THQ games, which were what most people, again in my circles, were excited about on D2D.  Titan Quest/SupCom/CoH/foo.<br>I can't believe that's coincidence.  If hope blizz does get into it, I want more ridiculously cheap games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure Valve is immune to the heat generated from some of the other DD services .
Direct2Drive 's recent per-week sales are now over .
The buzz generated on slickdeals and the gamer forums I frequent was pretty high .
I log in to steam last night and lo , they 've got an extremely similar per-week deal going .
It 's even THQ games , which were what most people , again in my circles , were excited about on D2D .
Titan Quest/SupCom/CoH/foo.I ca n't believe that 's coincidence .
If hope blizz does get into it , I want more ridiculously cheap games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure Valve is immune to the heat generated from some of the other DD services.
Direct2Drive's recent per-week sales are now over.
The buzz generated on slickdeals and the gamer forums I frequent was pretty high.
I log in to steam last night and lo, they've got an extremely similar per-week deal going.
It's even THQ games, which were what most people, again in my circles, were excited about on D2D.
Titan Quest/SupCom/CoH/foo.I can't believe that's coincidence.
If hope blizz does get into it, I want more ridiculously cheap games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731943</id>
	<title>Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA</title>
	<author>guywcole</author>
	<datestamp>1255449120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ability to track a person across different characters/games is a serious problem Blizz is going to have to look at.  A lot of people have non-guild alts so they can play the game in a non-social way when they want (to escape guild infighting, to unwind after a stressful day at work, to avoid stalker-ish people).  Take that out, and the game loses value.</p><p>Remember, as penny arcade put it:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad</p></div><p>Without anonymity, responsibility exists, and a game where you have to act responsibly <i>all the time</i> is far less fun (it's real life by a different set of rules).  Sometimes we just want to be fuckwads.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ability to track a person across different characters/games is a serious problem Blizz is going to have to look at .
A lot of people have non-guild alts so they can play the game in a non-social way when they want ( to escape guild infighting , to unwind after a stressful day at work , to avoid stalker-ish people ) .
Take that out , and the game loses value.Remember , as penny arcade put it : Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total FuckwadWithout anonymity , responsibility exists , and a game where you have to act responsibly all the time is far less fun ( it 's real life by a different set of rules ) .
Sometimes we just want to be fuckwads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ability to track a person across different characters/games is a serious problem Blizz is going to have to look at.
A lot of people have non-guild alts so they can play the game in a non-social way when they want (to escape guild infighting, to unwind after a stressful day at work, to avoid stalker-ish people).
Take that out, and the game loses value.Remember, as penny arcade put it:Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total FuckwadWithout anonymity, responsibility exists, and a game where you have to act responsibly all the time is far less fun (it's real life by a different set of rules).
Sometimes we just want to be fuckwads.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729519</id>
	<title>Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255426320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>this is really a push to create Blizzard's own digital distribution network, similar to Valve's Steam.</p></div><p>It'll be nice to see some competition. Having one company control the distribution channel will cause issues over the long term when they get too comfortable. Blizzard's one of the few publishers that has the weight to compete.</p><p>I doubt they'd be quick with the friends list integration though. Third party tools will probably pop up long before.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>this is really a push to create Blizzard 's own digital distribution network , similar to Valve 's Steam.It 'll be nice to see some competition .
Having one company control the distribution channel will cause issues over the long term when they get too comfortable .
Blizzard 's one of the few publishers that has the weight to compete.I doubt they 'd be quick with the friends list integration though .
Third party tools will probably pop up long before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is really a push to create Blizzard's own digital distribution network, similar to Valve's Steam.It'll be nice to see some competition.
Having one company control the distribution channel will cause issues over the long term when they get too comfortable.
Blizzard's one of the few publishers that has the weight to compete.I doubt they'd be quick with the friends list integration though.
Third party tools will probably pop up long before.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29732065</id>
	<title>Re:Misconceptions....</title>
	<author>PhilHibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1255449600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>5) You can add multiple World of Warcraft accounts to a single Battle.net account.  You'll get to choose which account you want to use when you login.  If you goto another computer (multiboxing, letting your GF play, w/e) and use your battle.net login, you can choose the other account and be online at the same time (you've still gotta pay 15 bucks a month for the subscription, per account).</p></div><p>Confirmed, this is what I do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>5 ) You can add multiple World of Warcraft accounts to a single Battle.net account .
You 'll get to choose which account you want to use when you login .
If you goto another computer ( multiboxing , letting your GF play , w/e ) and use your battle.net login , you can choose the other account and be online at the same time ( you 've still got ta pay 15 bucks a month for the subscription , per account ) .Confirmed , this is what I do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5) You can add multiple World of Warcraft accounts to a single Battle.net account.
You'll get to choose which account you want to use when you login.
If you goto another computer (multiboxing, letting your GF play, w/e) and use your battle.net login, you can choose the other account and be online at the same time (you've still gotta pay 15 bucks a month for the subscription, per account).Confirmed, this is what I do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29730543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29732603</id>
	<title>Re:Smells like a setup.</title>
	<author>Skuld-Chan</author>
	<datestamp>1255452060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you kidding? The server requirements for running a persistent online world are far greater than the server requirements for running a match making system - which is essentially what SC2 online play is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you kidding ?
The server requirements for running a persistent online world are far greater than the server requirements for running a match making system - which is essentially what SC2 online play is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you kidding?
The server requirements for running a persistent online world are far greater than the server requirements for running a match making system - which is essentially what SC2 online play is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729855</id>
	<title>Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255431960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blizzard did not copied Valve with Battle.net.</p><p>Battle.net existed since 1997, way before Steam (2003).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blizzard did not copied Valve with Battle.net.Battle.net existed since 1997 , way before Steam ( 2003 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blizzard did not copied Valve with Battle.net.Battle.net existed since 1997, way before Steam (2003).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29735003</id>
	<title>Re:Misconceptions....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255462860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>1) Battle.net accounts are actually more convenient, a single login for all your Blizzard titles will make things easier.</i></p><p>I agree with most of your points, I really wish they wouldn't use email addresses for battle.net logins though. Usernames are so much better and easier to type too. I hope they allow you to choose an optional username at least in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Battle.net accounts are actually more convenient , a single login for all your Blizzard titles will make things easier.I agree with most of your points , I really wish they would n't use email addresses for battle.net logins though .
Usernames are so much better and easier to type too .
I hope they allow you to choose an optional username at least in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Battle.net accounts are actually more convenient, a single login for all your Blizzard titles will make things easier.I agree with most of your points, I really wish they wouldn't use email addresses for battle.net logins though.
Usernames are so much better and easier to type too.
I hope they allow you to choose an optional username at least in the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29730543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29736931</id>
	<title>Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA</title>
	<author>Carra</author>
	<datestamp>1255427820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just checked their Titan quest package. 10 euros + 20 euros for expansion. Even at half price that will be 15 euros. The D2D deal was for 5 pounds (~5.6 euros).
<br> <br>
There's competition. D2Drive, gamersgate, impulse,...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just checked their Titan quest package .
10 euros + 20 euros for expansion .
Even at half price that will be 15 euros .
The D2D deal was for 5 pounds ( ~ 5.6 euros ) .
There 's competition .
D2Drive , gamersgate , impulse,.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just checked their Titan quest package.
10 euros + 20 euros for expansion.
Even at half price that will be 15 euros.
The D2D deal was for 5 pounds (~5.6 euros).
There's competition.
D2Drive, gamersgate, impulse,...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729789</id>
	<title>Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA</title>
	<author>Tridus</author>
	<datestamp>1255431000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, they work fine after the conversion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they work fine after the conversion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they work fine after the conversion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729457</id>
	<title>Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255425000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Basically, Blizzard is creating their own Steam-like competitor. You need a AAAAA level game that people are willing to register a new account for (like Valve did with Half-Life 2). Some people might bitch about it, but if you drink the Steam-Kool-Aid (like I do) it creates a better community atmosphere for those who play particular video games 10, 20 or even 80 hours a week. But enough about the community aspect, <b>this is really a push to create Blizzard's own digital distribution network, similar to Valve's Steam</b>. Valve pioneered the idea of building a D.Distribution network on a AAAAA title, and Blizzard is following their buisness plan step for step, by requiring people to register a battle.net account for Starcraft 2 (and WoW). Between the two, they'll have how many tens of millions of registered customers ready and waiting to buy games through their digital distribution channel? On day 1 no less. Pretty cool, and damn smart. Whoever the executive was that pioneered this (at the cost of delaying SC2) is getting a phat performance bonus next year<br>
&nbsp; <br>One can only hope (dream?) that battle.net and steam will have some sort of interoperability down the road. Fenced gardens are great, but people aren't going to want to juggle Battle.Net, Steam and Games for Windows Live buddy lists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , Blizzard is creating their own Steam-like competitor .
You need a AAAAA level game that people are willing to register a new account for ( like Valve did with Half-Life 2 ) .
Some people might bitch about it , but if you drink the Steam-Kool-Aid ( like I do ) it creates a better community atmosphere for those who play particular video games 10 , 20 or even 80 hours a week .
But enough about the community aspect , this is really a push to create Blizzard 's own digital distribution network , similar to Valve 's Steam .
Valve pioneered the idea of building a D.Distribution network on a AAAAA title , and Blizzard is following their buisness plan step for step , by requiring people to register a battle.net account for Starcraft 2 ( and WoW ) .
Between the two , they 'll have how many tens of millions of registered customers ready and waiting to buy games through their digital distribution channel ?
On day 1 no less .
Pretty cool , and damn smart .
Whoever the executive was that pioneered this ( at the cost of delaying SC2 ) is getting a phat performance bonus next year   One can only hope ( dream ?
) that battle.net and steam will have some sort of interoperability down the road .
Fenced gardens are great , but people are n't going to want to juggle Battle.Net , Steam and Games for Windows Live buddy lists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, Blizzard is creating their own Steam-like competitor.
You need a AAAAA level game that people are willing to register a new account for (like Valve did with Half-Life 2).
Some people might bitch about it, but if you drink the Steam-Kool-Aid (like I do) it creates a better community atmosphere for those who play particular video games 10, 20 or even 80 hours a week.
But enough about the community aspect, this is really a push to create Blizzard's own digital distribution network, similar to Valve's Steam.
Valve pioneered the idea of building a D.Distribution network on a AAAAA title, and Blizzard is following their buisness plan step for step, by requiring people to register a battle.net account for Starcraft 2 (and WoW).
Between the two, they'll have how many tens of millions of registered customers ready and waiting to buy games through their digital distribution channel?
On day 1 no less.
Pretty cool, and damn smart.
Whoever the executive was that pioneered this (at the cost of delaying SC2) is getting a phat performance bonus next year
  One can only hope (dream?
) that battle.net and steam will have some sort of interoperability down the road.
Fenced gardens are great, but people aren't going to want to juggle Battle.Net, Steam and Games for Windows Live buddy lists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729297</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729297</id>
	<title>Of course, I didn't RTFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255466160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But what will it change? I mean, other than having to open an account at Battle.net, what is the news exactly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But what will it change ?
I mean , other than having to open an account at Battle.net , what is the news exactly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what will it change?
I mean, other than having to open an account at Battle.net, what is the news exactly?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731907</id>
	<title>Re:Misconceptions....</title>
	<author>ildon</author>
	<datestamp>1255449000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, no. I've done it. It works fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , no .
I 've done it .
It works fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, no.
I've done it.
It works fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29738839</id>
	<title>Stupid.</title>
	<author>Ouka</author>
	<datestamp>1255435740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This pisses me off.  Account compromising is already a problem in WoW, having a single login tied to all your Blizzard games just increases the opportunities for your account information to be lifted.</p><p>I already hate that the Bliz forums require your account login info in order to post, they could have had a one-off login for the forums so if your computer is infected with a keylogger or packet sniffer your game account would not be compromised.</p><p>For Steam games it's not that big a deal - the games aren't MMOs so you don't have toons that you have worked on for months or years being destroyed if you get hacked.</p><p>Single-account login is a step backwards in security, not a step forward.  The Bliz exe who thought up this brain-dead idea probably uses the same login and password for his bank, credit card, phone, energy company, and email.  Stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This pisses me off .
Account compromising is already a problem in WoW , having a single login tied to all your Blizzard games just increases the opportunities for your account information to be lifted.I already hate that the Bliz forums require your account login info in order to post , they could have had a one-off login for the forums so if your computer is infected with a keylogger or packet sniffer your game account would not be compromised.For Steam games it 's not that big a deal - the games are n't MMOs so you do n't have toons that you have worked on for months or years being destroyed if you get hacked.Single-account login is a step backwards in security , not a step forward .
The Bliz exe who thought up this brain-dead idea probably uses the same login and password for his bank , credit card , phone , energy company , and email .
Stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This pisses me off.
Account compromising is already a problem in WoW, having a single login tied to all your Blizzard games just increases the opportunities for your account information to be lifted.I already hate that the Bliz forums require your account login info in order to post, they could have had a one-off login for the forums so if your computer is infected with a keylogger or packet sniffer your game account would not be compromised.For Steam games it's not that big a deal - the games aren't MMOs so you don't have toons that you have worked on for months or years being destroyed if you get hacked.Single-account login is a step backwards in security, not a step forward.
The Bliz exe who thought up this brain-dead idea probably uses the same login and password for his bank, credit card, phone, energy company, and email.
Stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29730845</id>
	<title>And on a serious note</title>
	<author>awjr</author>
	<datestamp>1255443120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The merge itself is good imho, however there is a major problem with Parental Controls. The old login server used to terminate your connection when you hit a 'no play' time. Now it leaves you logged in. If you try and login in during 'no play' time then it stops you which is fine.</p><p>This is a major issue for somebody that enjoys the game, wants their child to enjoy the game, but doesn't want that child ruining their education. I know how addictive WoW can be.</p><p>Have raised it with Blizzard, but they haven't responded as yet. This needs fixing. Yes I want to instil a sense of responsibility in my child, but sometimes a machine just saying no, is very difficult to argue with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The merge itself is good imho , however there is a major problem with Parental Controls .
The old login server used to terminate your connection when you hit a 'no play ' time .
Now it leaves you logged in .
If you try and login in during 'no play ' time then it stops you which is fine.This is a major issue for somebody that enjoys the game , wants their child to enjoy the game , but does n't want that child ruining their education .
I know how addictive WoW can be.Have raised it with Blizzard , but they have n't responded as yet .
This needs fixing .
Yes I want to instil a sense of responsibility in my child , but sometimes a machine just saying no , is very difficult to argue with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The merge itself is good imho, however there is a major problem with Parental Controls.
The old login server used to terminate your connection when you hit a 'no play' time.
Now it leaves you logged in.
If you try and login in during 'no play' time then it stops you which is fine.This is a major issue for somebody that enjoys the game, wants their child to enjoy the game, but doesn't want that child ruining their education.
I know how addictive WoW can be.Have raised it with Blizzard, but they haven't responded as yet.
This needs fixing.
Yes I want to instil a sense of responsibility in my child, but sometimes a machine just saying no, is very difficult to argue with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731629</id>
	<title>Re:Misconceptions....</title>
	<author>Domini</author>
	<datestamp>1255447800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>7) The free iPhone public/private key dongle app is cool too.</p><p>I run my D2, WoW and SC games off Battle.net. Works well... the authentication server has also less downtime than the vanilla WoW one...touch wood.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>7 ) The free iPhone public/private key dongle app is cool too.I run my D2 , WoW and SC games off Battle.net .
Works well... the authentication server has also less downtime than the vanilla WoW one...touch wood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>7) The free iPhone public/private key dongle app is cool too.I run my D2, WoW and SC games off Battle.net.
Works well... the authentication server has also less downtime than the vanilla WoW one...touch wood.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29730543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29732703</id>
	<title>an Invisible requirement</title>
	<author>Kryptic Knight</author>
	<datestamp>1255452600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing I'd say is that from a UK / EU perspective on WoW this requirement IS NOT very well known.</p><p>Most players don't read the forums, and quite a lot don't visit the <a href="http://www.wow-europe.com/" title="wow-europe.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.wow-europe.com/</a> [wow-europe.com] homepage (the EU equivalent of the www.worldofwarcraft.com page)</p><p>You'd expect them to have an annoucement on the wow login page - but no there's just Free-Server Transfers there.<br>You'd expect them to have an in-game notice - but no there's just stuff about fake/hack alpha-beta for Cata.</p><p>Come Nov 12th Blizzard are gonna have a heck of a lot of players going "WTF" "why have you locked me out" etc etc on the forums and a shed-load of phone calls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing I 'd say is that from a UK / EU perspective on WoW this requirement IS NOT very well known.Most players do n't read the forums , and quite a lot do n't visit the http : //www.wow-europe.com/ [ wow-europe.com ] homepage ( the EU equivalent of the www.worldofwarcraft.com page ) You 'd expect them to have an annoucement on the wow login page - but no there 's just Free-Server Transfers there.You 'd expect them to have an in-game notice - but no there 's just stuff about fake/hack alpha-beta for Cata.Come Nov 12th Blizzard are gon na have a heck of a lot of players going " WTF " " why have you locked me out " etc etc on the forums and a shed-load of phone calls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing I'd say is that from a UK / EU perspective on WoW this requirement IS NOT very well known.Most players don't read the forums, and quite a lot don't visit the http://www.wow-europe.com/ [wow-europe.com] homepage (the EU equivalent of the www.worldofwarcraft.com page)You'd expect them to have an annoucement on the wow login page - but no there's just Free-Server Transfers there.You'd expect them to have an in-game notice - but no there's just stuff about fake/hack alpha-beta for Cata.Come Nov 12th Blizzard are gonna have a heck of a lot of players going "WTF" "why have you locked me out" etc etc on the forums and a shed-load of phone calls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731421</id>
	<title>Re:Misconceptions....</title>
	<author>atchijov</author>
	<datestamp>1255446780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All true except number 5.  As of now, you can not login into 2 different WoW accounts via same Battle.net account at the same time.  When you trying to add second WoW account to your Battle.net account, you will get warning to this effect.  They do mention that this limitation will be lifted in the future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All true except number 5 .
As of now , you can not login into 2 different WoW accounts via same Battle.net account at the same time .
When you trying to add second WoW account to your Battle.net account , you will get warning to this effect .
They do mention that this limitation will be lifted in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All true except number 5.
As of now, you can not login into 2 different WoW accounts via same Battle.net account at the same time.
When you trying to add second WoW account to your Battle.net account, you will get warning to this effect.
They do mention that this limitation will be lifted in the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29730543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731883</id>
	<title>Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1255448880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>P.S.: Your bonus will be based on your Arena ranking, as every other director's.</p></div><p>Finally the mystery PvP nerfs have a motive...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>P.S .
: Your bonus will be based on your Arena ranking , as every other director 's.Finally the mystery PvP nerfs have a motive.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>P.S.
: Your bonus will be based on your Arena ranking, as every other director's.Finally the mystery PvP nerfs have a motive...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29730543</id>
	<title>Misconceptions....</title>
	<author>cigawoot</author>
	<datestamp>1255440600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are a few myths stated in the comments I wish to clear up:<br>
<br>
1) Battle.net accounts are actually more convenient, a single login for all your Blizzard titles will make things easier.<br>
2) As far as I know, unless your guild leader is on your battle.net friends, they won't be able to see you play Starcraft 2.<br>
3) If you get banned from World of Warcraft, it will NOT ban your from other games, including other WoW accounts on your battle.net account.<br>
4) Don't bot, cheat, scam people, stay stupid shit in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/2 and you won't get banned.<br>
5) You can add multiple World of Warcraft accounts to a single Battle.net account.  You'll get to choose which account you want to use when you login.  If you goto another computer (multiboxing, letting your GF play, w/e) and use your battle.net login, you can choose the other account and be online at the same time (you've still gotta pay 15 bucks a month for the subscription, per account).<br>
6) Alarmists ARE indeed funny to read.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a few myths stated in the comments I wish to clear up : 1 ) Battle.net accounts are actually more convenient , a single login for all your Blizzard titles will make things easier .
2 ) As far as I know , unless your guild leader is on your battle.net friends , they wo n't be able to see you play Starcraft 2 .
3 ) If you get banned from World of Warcraft , it will NOT ban your from other games , including other WoW accounts on your battle.net account .
4 ) Do n't bot , cheat , scam people , stay stupid shit in /2 and you wo n't get banned .
5 ) You can add multiple World of Warcraft accounts to a single Battle.net account .
You 'll get to choose which account you want to use when you login .
If you goto another computer ( multiboxing , letting your GF play , w/e ) and use your battle.net login , you can choose the other account and be online at the same time ( you 've still got ta pay 15 bucks a month for the subscription , per account ) .
6 ) Alarmists ARE indeed funny to read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a few myths stated in the comments I wish to clear up:

1) Battle.net accounts are actually more convenient, a single login for all your Blizzard titles will make things easier.
2) As far as I know, unless your guild leader is on your battle.net friends, they won't be able to see you play Starcraft 2.
3) If you get banned from World of Warcraft, it will NOT ban your from other games, including other WoW accounts on your battle.net account.
4) Don't bot, cheat, scam people, stay stupid shit in /2 and you won't get banned.
5) You can add multiple World of Warcraft accounts to a single Battle.net account.
You'll get to choose which account you want to use when you login.
If you goto another computer (multiboxing, letting your GF play, w/e) and use your battle.net login, you can choose the other account and be online at the same time (you've still gotta pay 15 bucks a month for the subscription, per account).
6) Alarmists ARE indeed funny to read.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29730867</id>
	<title>Re:Of course, I didn't RTFA</title>
	<author>jiteo</author>
	<datestamp>1255443300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blizzard already have their content distribution network - it's called BitTorrent.</p><p>No really, their downloader for the WoW client and patches is a (possibly modified/customized) branded BitTorrent client.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blizzard already have their content distribution network - it 's called BitTorrent.No really , their downloader for the WoW client and patches is a ( possibly modified/customized ) branded BitTorrent client .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blizzard already have their content distribution network - it's called BitTorrent.No really, their downloader for the WoW client and patches is a (possibly modified/customized) branded BitTorrent client.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29732133</id>
	<title>Re:Misconceptions....</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1255449840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>4) Don't bot, cheat, scam people, stay stupid shit in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/2 and you won't get banned.</p></div><p>On the one hand, this oversimplifies the situation.  On the other, it hasn't really changed.  So the point is moot, even if you're technically incorrect.  More below...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>5) You can add multiple World of Warcraft accounts to a single Battle.net account.</p></div><p>But since the cost of a new battlenet account is an email address, why the hell would you dream of doing that?</p><p>In fact, none of my household's battlenet accounts (we have three) have actual email accounts behind them.  They all point to false addresses at my google domain which all trickle down to my actual email address.  This is going to be the case for every account I open with them to avoid potential complications with number 4.</p><p>That being said, lets look at some of the ways I might imagine incurring a loss under number 4 above:</p><p>A) I'm destroying the third map on the Terran Campaign while my son is jumping off of Dalaran on my main.  Same person can't be on two games (actively) at once, so out comes the ban hammer.</p><p>B) I decide to sell/gift/transfer my account.  This is actually what happened to both my SC1 and Diablo2 keys.  I wouldn't necessarily want that to give that person access to my WoW accounts at the same time.  And what about when WoW2 comes out?  Likely, I'll still have characters under my name with WoW1.  I did in EQ when EQ2 happened, for example.  Hell I probably have a hundred total characters spread across multiple accounts.  Not that they're worth anything, per se, but I see them as mine to transfer as I see fit.  And you never know when someone might ask you for them, as was the case with Diablo2.</p><p>C) I frequently say 'stupid shit' in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/2 because I can't let moronic comments go untouched.  Its a personality flaw.  I'm on a crusade against stupidity and that pretty much puts me at odds with people from time to time.</p><p>D) What if I (shudder) buy gold?  Would I do that on an alt account that I don't really care about, or on my main?  If they were all tied together, would it matter?</p><p>Again, all I need do to re-gain this tiny amount of freedom that I would have had before this change is dummy-up some additional email addresses.  Which I do all the time anyway.</p><p>The unfortunate part is, not everyone knows how easy this is to do.  Or to put it in Blizzard terms, 'cha-ching'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>4 ) Do n't bot , cheat , scam people , stay stupid shit in /2 and you wo n't get banned.On the one hand , this oversimplifies the situation .
On the other , it has n't really changed .
So the point is moot , even if you 're technically incorrect .
More below...5 ) You can add multiple World of Warcraft accounts to a single Battle.net account.But since the cost of a new battlenet account is an email address , why the hell would you dream of doing that ? In fact , none of my household 's battlenet accounts ( we have three ) have actual email accounts behind them .
They all point to false addresses at my google domain which all trickle down to my actual email address .
This is going to be the case for every account I open with them to avoid potential complications with number 4.That being said , lets look at some of the ways I might imagine incurring a loss under number 4 above : A ) I 'm destroying the third map on the Terran Campaign while my son is jumping off of Dalaran on my main .
Same person ca n't be on two games ( actively ) at once , so out comes the ban hammer.B ) I decide to sell/gift/transfer my account .
This is actually what happened to both my SC1 and Diablo2 keys .
I would n't necessarily want that to give that person access to my WoW accounts at the same time .
And what about when WoW2 comes out ?
Likely , I 'll still have characters under my name with WoW1 .
I did in EQ when EQ2 happened , for example .
Hell I probably have a hundred total characters spread across multiple accounts .
Not that they 're worth anything , per se , but I see them as mine to transfer as I see fit .
And you never know when someone might ask you for them , as was the case with Diablo2.C ) I frequently say 'stupid shit ' in /2 because I ca n't let moronic comments go untouched .
Its a personality flaw .
I 'm on a crusade against stupidity and that pretty much puts me at odds with people from time to time.D ) What if I ( shudder ) buy gold ?
Would I do that on an alt account that I do n't really care about , or on my main ?
If they were all tied together , would it matter ? Again , all I need do to re-gain this tiny amount of freedom that I would have had before this change is dummy-up some additional email addresses .
Which I do all the time anyway.The unfortunate part is , not everyone knows how easy this is to do .
Or to put it in Blizzard terms , 'cha-ching' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4) Don't bot, cheat, scam people, stay stupid shit in /2 and you won't get banned.On the one hand, this oversimplifies the situation.
On the other, it hasn't really changed.
So the point is moot, even if you're technically incorrect.
More below...5) You can add multiple World of Warcraft accounts to a single Battle.net account.But since the cost of a new battlenet account is an email address, why the hell would you dream of doing that?In fact, none of my household's battlenet accounts (we have three) have actual email accounts behind them.
They all point to false addresses at my google domain which all trickle down to my actual email address.
This is going to be the case for every account I open with them to avoid potential complications with number 4.That being said, lets look at some of the ways I might imagine incurring a loss under number 4 above:A) I'm destroying the third map on the Terran Campaign while my son is jumping off of Dalaran on my main.
Same person can't be on two games (actively) at once, so out comes the ban hammer.B) I decide to sell/gift/transfer my account.
This is actually what happened to both my SC1 and Diablo2 keys.
I wouldn't necessarily want that to give that person access to my WoW accounts at the same time.
And what about when WoW2 comes out?
Likely, I'll still have characters under my name with WoW1.
I did in EQ when EQ2 happened, for example.
Hell I probably have a hundred total characters spread across multiple accounts.
Not that they're worth anything, per se, but I see them as mine to transfer as I see fit.
And you never know when someone might ask you for them, as was the case with Diablo2.C) I frequently say 'stupid shit' in /2 because I can't let moronic comments go untouched.
Its a personality flaw.
I'm on a crusade against stupidity and that pretty much puts me at odds with people from time to time.D) What if I (shudder) buy gold?
Would I do that on an alt account that I don't really care about, or on my main?
If they were all tied together, would it matter?Again, all I need do to re-gain this tiny amount of freedom that I would have had before this change is dummy-up some additional email addresses.
Which I do all the time anyway.The unfortunate part is, not everyone knows how easy this is to do.
Or to put it in Blizzard terms, 'cha-ching'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29730543</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0622226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0622226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29738477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29730543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0622226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29732233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0622226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29730543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0622226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29730543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0622226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29733017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29730543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0622226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29730543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0622226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29735003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29730543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0622226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29730867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0622226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0622226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29735325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29730543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0622226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29738523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0622226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29736931
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0622226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29730739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0622226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0622226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29732603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0622226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0622226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29732065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29730543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0622226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0622226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29732033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729519
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0622226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_0622226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29732133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29730543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0622226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729347
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729311
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731943
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29738523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729457
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29730739
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729611
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731883
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731295
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729519
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29732033
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731021
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29736931
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29730867
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29732233
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29729855
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0622226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731057
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0622226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29730543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731079
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29738477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29732065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29735003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731891
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29735325
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29733017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29732133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731421
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731907
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_0622226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29731257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_0622226.29732603
</commentlist>
</conversation>
