<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_24_2055245</id>
	<title>BBC Planning To Launch Global iPlayer VoD Service</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256382300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"The BBC is reportedly mulling over plans to come up with an <a href="http://www.itproportal.com/portal/news/article/2009/10/23/bbc-planning-launch-global-iplayer-vod-service/showall/">international edition of its hugely popular iPlayer service</a>, in a bid to allow global audiences to catch up with some of its top shows, according to BBC Worldwide, the corporation's profit-making arm. BBC Worldwide said that the move would help revamp its business model, and thereby help the corporation in raking in significant profits through its premium content."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " The BBC is reportedly mulling over plans to come up with an international edition of its hugely popular iPlayer service , in a bid to allow global audiences to catch up with some of its top shows , according to BBC Worldwide , the corporation 's profit-making arm .
BBC Worldwide said that the move would help revamp its business model , and thereby help the corporation in raking in significant profits through its premium content .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "The BBC is reportedly mulling over plans to come up with an international edition of its hugely popular iPlayer service, in a bid to allow global audiences to catch up with some of its top shows, according to BBC Worldwide, the corporation's profit-making arm.
BBC Worldwide said that the move would help revamp its business model, and thereby help the corporation in raking in significant profits through its premium content.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29867443</id>
	<title>Micropayments for REAL news.</title>
	<author>crhylove</author>
	<datestamp>1256469060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like many parent posters I would pay 5 cents an episode for news without commercials.  However, I would be much more inclined to pay 5 cents per show for news completely without corporate sponsorship:</p><p>News about how Monsanto could be potentially devastating the entire food chain with genetic experimentation that has already cross-pollinated into the wild.</p><p>News about how Aspartame and other chemicals commonly put in corporate food are toxic and cause cancer.</p><p>News about how both the British and American governments are completely run by corporations, generally at odds with the welfare and interest of the common man.</p><p>News about how the rest of the corporate news is also generally at odds with the welfare and interest of the common man, and in addition at odds with any factual information or truth whatsoever.</p><p>In fact, PBS, and BBC should both be running these news pieces on government subsidy for free to the populace and without corporate sponsorship.  Further, they should be offering all video online and for free in open formats like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.OGG or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xvid, and easily downloadable via an open source torrent app, like Deluge.</p><p>Then we could finally be getting REAL information, FCC be damned.  Like who killed JFK?  Back and to the Left.  Back, and to the Left.  Back.... and to the LEFT!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like many parent posters I would pay 5 cents an episode for news without commercials .
However , I would be much more inclined to pay 5 cents per show for news completely without corporate sponsorship : News about how Monsanto could be potentially devastating the entire food chain with genetic experimentation that has already cross-pollinated into the wild.News about how Aspartame and other chemicals commonly put in corporate food are toxic and cause cancer.News about how both the British and American governments are completely run by corporations , generally at odds with the welfare and interest of the common man.News about how the rest of the corporate news is also generally at odds with the welfare and interest of the common man , and in addition at odds with any factual information or truth whatsoever.In fact , PBS , and BBC should both be running these news pieces on government subsidy for free to the populace and without corporate sponsorship .
Further , they should be offering all video online and for free in open formats like .OGG or .xvid , and easily downloadable via an open source torrent app , like Deluge.Then we could finally be getting REAL information , FCC be damned .
Like who killed JFK ?
Back and to the Left .
Back , and to the Left .
Back.... and to the LEFT ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like many parent posters I would pay 5 cents an episode for news without commercials.
However, I would be much more inclined to pay 5 cents per show for news completely without corporate sponsorship:News about how Monsanto could be potentially devastating the entire food chain with genetic experimentation that has already cross-pollinated into the wild.News about how Aspartame and other chemicals commonly put in corporate food are toxic and cause cancer.News about how both the British and American governments are completely run by corporations, generally at odds with the welfare and interest of the common man.News about how the rest of the corporate news is also generally at odds with the welfare and interest of the common man, and in addition at odds with any factual information or truth whatsoever.In fact, PBS, and BBC should both be running these news pieces on government subsidy for free to the populace and without corporate sponsorship.
Further, they should be offering all video online and for free in open formats like .OGG or .xvid, and easily downloadable via an open source torrent app, like Deluge.Then we could finally be getting REAL information, FCC be damned.
Like who killed JFK?
Back and to the Left.
Back, and to the Left.
Back.... and to the LEFT!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861129</id>
	<title>Nasty habbit</title>
	<author>Animaether</author>
	<datestamp>1256391840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little habbitses. Wicked, tricksy, false!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We wants it , we needs it .
Must have the precious .
They stole it from us .
Sneaky little habbitses .
Wicked , tricksy , false !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We wants it, we needs it.
Must have the precious.
They stole it from us.
Sneaky little habbitses.
Wicked, tricksy, false!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861097</id>
	<title>BBC is a weird beastie</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1256391480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BBC is a really weird organisation.  It's a state-run TV channel, which usually we assume means "propaganda mouthpiece".  The BBC is set up in a peculiar way whereby the state collects the money for them but the government is not allowed (in theory) control over the BBC itself.  The BBC's charter has various requirements to show balance in political reporting and the government is denied direct mechanisms to interfere in editorial decisions.  This generally works pretty well and the BBC is widely considered a fairly accurate, relatively unbiased news source.</p><p>This independence can fall down a bit; when the BBC aired allegations that the government had exaggerated evidence in support of the Iraq war, a whole complicated scandal resulted including the suicide of the civil servant who made the allegations (after he was basically abandoned by his department and hounded by the media).  The government set up an enquiry called the Hutton Report, which viewed a lot of evidence (including a draft where a political advisor / spin doctor suggested changing "may have weapons of mass destruction" to "has weapons of mass destruction") and came to the conclusion that nobody was really at fault but the BBC should have done better.  A bit mystifying to many of us.  Anyhow, some say that the BBC has been a bit more cautious about government criticism since then.  Nevertheless it (appears to) remain a fairly comprehensive and unbiased source, compared to many of the other major players in news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC is a really weird organisation .
It 's a state-run TV channel , which usually we assume means " propaganda mouthpiece " .
The BBC is set up in a peculiar way whereby the state collects the money for them but the government is not allowed ( in theory ) control over the BBC itself .
The BBC 's charter has various requirements to show balance in political reporting and the government is denied direct mechanisms to interfere in editorial decisions .
This generally works pretty well and the BBC is widely considered a fairly accurate , relatively unbiased news source.This independence can fall down a bit ; when the BBC aired allegations that the government had exaggerated evidence in support of the Iraq war , a whole complicated scandal resulted including the suicide of the civil servant who made the allegations ( after he was basically abandoned by his department and hounded by the media ) .
The government set up an enquiry called the Hutton Report , which viewed a lot of evidence ( including a draft where a political advisor / spin doctor suggested changing " may have weapons of mass destruction " to " has weapons of mass destruction " ) and came to the conclusion that nobody was really at fault but the BBC should have done better .
A bit mystifying to many of us .
Anyhow , some say that the BBC has been a bit more cautious about government criticism since then .
Nevertheless it ( appears to ) remain a fairly comprehensive and unbiased source , compared to many of the other major players in news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC is a really weird organisation.
It's a state-run TV channel, which usually we assume means "propaganda mouthpiece".
The BBC is set up in a peculiar way whereby the state collects the money for them but the government is not allowed (in theory) control over the BBC itself.
The BBC's charter has various requirements to show balance in political reporting and the government is denied direct mechanisms to interfere in editorial decisions.
This generally works pretty well and the BBC is widely considered a fairly accurate, relatively unbiased news source.This independence can fall down a bit; when the BBC aired allegations that the government had exaggerated evidence in support of the Iraq war, a whole complicated scandal resulted including the suicide of the civil servant who made the allegations (after he was basically abandoned by his department and hounded by the media).
The government set up an enquiry called the Hutton Report, which viewed a lot of evidence (including a draft where a political advisor / spin doctor suggested changing "may have weapons of mass destruction" to "has weapons of mass destruction") and came to the conclusion that nobody was really at fault but the BBC should have done better.
A bit mystifying to many of us.
Anyhow, some say that the BBC has been a bit more cautious about government criticism since then.
Nevertheless it (appears to) remain a fairly comprehensive and unbiased source, compared to many of the other major players in news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29868477</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah, it shows just how out of touch they are</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256483100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If anything is out of touch with reality it's your list. It shows that you're a moron.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If anything is out of touch with reality it 's your list .
It shows that you 're a moron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anything is out of touch with reality it's your list.
It shows that you're a moron.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860783</id>
	<title>hugely popular?</title>
	<author>tirnacopu</author>
	<datestamp>1256388180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> I would really like to see the criteria of whatever study classified the iPlayer as popular. Nobody likes it. Nobody wants it. Through several iterations in its life, it has failed again and again in ridiculous ways. We the public hate its DRM and regional limits - even for shows that should be in the public domain, we hate the fact that BBC dropped the P2P idea because they couldn't figure out how to get it to work, we hate is clumsy and CPU-hungry interface, we hate it hate it hate it.<br>
&nbsp; What we DO want is the content offered through it, the high quality shows BBC has produced for more than half a century, this application is nothing but a clumsy annoying way to present them to the public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would really like to see the criteria of whatever study classified the iPlayer as popular .
Nobody likes it .
Nobody wants it .
Through several iterations in its life , it has failed again and again in ridiculous ways .
We the public hate its DRM and regional limits - even for shows that should be in the public domain , we hate the fact that BBC dropped the P2P idea because they could n't figure out how to get it to work , we hate is clumsy and CPU-hungry interface , we hate it hate it hate it .
  What we DO want is the content offered through it , the high quality shows BBC has produced for more than half a century , this application is nothing but a clumsy annoying way to present them to the public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I would really like to see the criteria of whatever study classified the iPlayer as popular.
Nobody likes it.
Nobody wants it.
Through several iterations in its life, it has failed again and again in ridiculous ways.
We the public hate its DRM and regional limits - even for shows that should be in the public domain, we hate the fact that BBC dropped the P2P idea because they couldn't figure out how to get it to work, we hate is clumsy and CPU-hungry interface, we hate it hate it hate it.
  What we DO want is the content offered through it, the high quality shows BBC has produced for more than half a century, this application is nothing but a clumsy annoying way to present them to the public.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863305</id>
	<title>Re:hugely popular?</title>
	<author>teh kurisu</author>
	<datestamp>1256469480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>we hate the fact that BBC dropped the P2P idea because they couldn't figure out how to get it to work</p></div> </blockquote><p>Actually, "we the public" hated the P2P idea because the BBC was using "we the public's" bandwidth to distribute its content instead of providing its own.  The P2P iPlayer was only liked by people who read Slashdot.</p><p>Why do you care whether P2P is used or not?  As long as your downloads complete in a timely manner, what difference does it make how it got there?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we hate the fact that BBC dropped the P2P idea because they could n't figure out how to get it to work Actually , " we the public " hated the P2P idea because the BBC was using " we the public 's " bandwidth to distribute its content instead of providing its own .
The P2P iPlayer was only liked by people who read Slashdot.Why do you care whether P2P is used or not ?
As long as your downloads complete in a timely manner , what difference does it make how it got there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we hate the fact that BBC dropped the P2P idea because they couldn't figure out how to get it to work Actually, "we the public" hated the P2P idea because the BBC was using "we the public's" bandwidth to distribute its content instead of providing its own.
The P2P iPlayer was only liked by people who read Slashdot.Why do you care whether P2P is used or not?
As long as your downloads complete in a timely manner, what difference does it make how it got there?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29865195</id>
	<title>Re:QI Please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256492160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Glad to see such genius carrying over across the pond, I absolutely love that show.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glad to see such genius carrying over across the pond , I absolutely love that show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glad to see such genius carrying over across the pond, I absolutely love that show.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860587</id>
	<title>Sweet!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256386140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have been waiting for a chance to watch BBC streaming, instead of having to wait until someone in the UK records, transcodes, and uploads a torrent...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been waiting for a chance to watch BBC streaming , instead of having to wait until someone in the UK records , transcodes , and uploads a torrent.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been waiting for a chance to watch BBC streaming, instead of having to wait until someone in the UK records, transcodes, and uploads a torrent...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860645</id>
	<title>Re:Is it still Windows only?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256386680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it's (mostly) Adobe only, using Flash for streaming (via RTMP) and AIR for downloaded programmes.  The iPhone version uses HTTP streams.

<a href="http://linuxcentre.net/getiplayer" title="linuxcentre.net" rel="nofollow">get\_iplayer</a> [linuxcentre.net] is a nice script to download iplayer content a little more permanently.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's ( mostly ) Adobe only , using Flash for streaming ( via RTMP ) and AIR for downloaded programmes .
The iPhone version uses HTTP streams .
get \ _iplayer [ linuxcentre.net ] is a nice script to download iplayer content a little more permanently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's (mostly) Adobe only, using Flash for streaming (via RTMP) and AIR for downloaded programmes.
The iPhone version uses HTTP streams.
get\_iplayer [linuxcentre.net] is a nice script to download iplayer content a little more permanently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29895497</id>
	<title>Re:hugely popular?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256736240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DRM? What DRM?</p><p>I download the iplayer programs I want to watch with get\_iplayer and watch them with mplayer, I couldn't do this if it had DRM.</p><p>What regional limits?  They don't let you download from outside the UK but that is a national limit not regional.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DRM ?
What DRM ? I download the iplayer programs I want to watch with get \ _iplayer and watch them with mplayer , I could n't do this if it had DRM.What regional limits ?
They do n't let you download from outside the UK but that is a national limit not regional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DRM?
What DRM?I download the iplayer programs I want to watch with get\_iplayer and watch them with mplayer, I couldn't do this if it had DRM.What regional limits?
They don't let you download from outside the UK but that is a national limit not regional.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863191</id>
	<title>Re:BBC is a weird beastie</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1256466720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You call it "state run", then go on to explain how it is not state run.</p><p>The state gives it authority to collect a license fee, on condition that they abide by their charter. And there the relationship with the state ends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You call it " state run " , then go on to explain how it is not state run.The state gives it authority to collect a license fee , on condition that they abide by their charter .
And there the relationship with the state ends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You call it "state run", then go on to explain how it is not state run.The state gives it authority to collect a license fee, on condition that they abide by their charter.
And there the relationship with the state ends.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29862587</id>
	<title>Re:BBC is a weird beastie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256410740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BBC is weird that it's a really popular high-rating TV network, yet it's the government channel at the same time.  Unlike the US and Australian equivalents (PBS and ABC), the BBC is really *big*.  (In most other countries around Europe, or New Zealand, Canada, they are much smaller or just sold off and private now).</p><p>In earlier times this used to be a clearly good thing, because the big networks would either produce populist trash and/or import all their good stuff from the US, so whether you were living in Britain (and paying for it like a compulsory cable TV fee) or outside Britain, this was clearly making your choice of TV programming better.</p><p>Now that the non-government commercial TV models are coming under pressure, the BBC is suddenly looking threatening and unjustifiable if you work for one of the other networks.  If you're a TV viewer, however, it's even more of a good thing that you want to keep.</p><p>That's why the "global iPlayer" is such a double-edged sword.  It could make the BBC too good.  Plus, it gets the local distributors of BBC content off-side if you do it wrong.</p><p>The trick will be to clearly and fairly split the funding &amp; operations of the "global" operations, in the way that BBC tries to do already with its worldwide news channels and other satellite channels.  They have to be, and be seen to be, self-supporting.</p><p>Voice of America, Australia Network and Deutsche Welle each come out of some shared broadcaster facilities in the US, Australia and Germany, but are separately funded by foreign affairs departments (depts of state, etc).</p><p>CK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC is weird that it 's a really popular high-rating TV network , yet it 's the government channel at the same time .
Unlike the US and Australian equivalents ( PBS and ABC ) , the BBC is really * big * .
( In most other countries around Europe , or New Zealand , Canada , they are much smaller or just sold off and private now ) .In earlier times this used to be a clearly good thing , because the big networks would either produce populist trash and/or import all their good stuff from the US , so whether you were living in Britain ( and paying for it like a compulsory cable TV fee ) or outside Britain , this was clearly making your choice of TV programming better.Now that the non-government commercial TV models are coming under pressure , the BBC is suddenly looking threatening and unjustifiable if you work for one of the other networks .
If you 're a TV viewer , however , it 's even more of a good thing that you want to keep.That 's why the " global iPlayer " is such a double-edged sword .
It could make the BBC too good .
Plus , it gets the local distributors of BBC content off-side if you do it wrong.The trick will be to clearly and fairly split the funding &amp; operations of the " global " operations , in the way that BBC tries to do already with its worldwide news channels and other satellite channels .
They have to be , and be seen to be , self-supporting.Voice of America , Australia Network and Deutsche Welle each come out of some shared broadcaster facilities in the US , Australia and Germany , but are separately funded by foreign affairs departments ( depts of state , etc ) .CK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC is weird that it's a really popular high-rating TV network, yet it's the government channel at the same time.
Unlike the US and Australian equivalents (PBS and ABC), the BBC is really *big*.
(In most other countries around Europe, or New Zealand, Canada, they are much smaller or just sold off and private now).In earlier times this used to be a clearly good thing, because the big networks would either produce populist trash and/or import all their good stuff from the US, so whether you were living in Britain (and paying for it like a compulsory cable TV fee) or outside Britain, this was clearly making your choice of TV programming better.Now that the non-government commercial TV models are coming under pressure, the BBC is suddenly looking threatening and unjustifiable if you work for one of the other networks.
If you're a TV viewer, however, it's even more of a good thing that you want to keep.That's why the "global iPlayer" is such a double-edged sword.
It could make the BBC too good.
Plus, it gets the local distributors of BBC content off-side if you do it wrong.The trick will be to clearly and fairly split the funding &amp; operations of the "global" operations, in the way that BBC tries to do already with its worldwide news channels and other satellite channels.
They have to be, and be seen to be, self-supporting.Voice of America, Australia Network and Deutsche Welle each come out of some shared broadcaster facilities in the US, Australia and Germany, but are separately funded by foreign affairs departments (depts of state, etc).CK.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29862879</id>
	<title>Re:Give me this:</title>
	<author>dwater</author>
	<datestamp>1256502960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please, not paypal...that's too restrictive to non-US countries. I wouldn't mind paying micropayments on my phone bill, and that's probably where I would watch them anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please , not paypal...that 's too restrictive to non-US countries .
I would n't mind paying micropayments on my phone bill , and that 's probably where I would watch them anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please, not paypal...that's too restrictive to non-US countries.
I wouldn't mind paying micropayments on my phone bill, and that's probably where I would watch them anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29864471</id>
	<title>Re:BBC is a weird beastie</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1256484780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the beeb isn't saying what these politicians want said, then it has to be doing a sterling job.  You can tell just how good a job its doing by measuring the amount of vitriol said politicians and supporters spew when confronted with it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the beeb is n't saying what these politicians want said , then it has to be doing a sterling job .
You can tell just how good a job its doing by measuring the amount of vitriol said politicians and supporters spew when confronted with it : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the beeb isn't saying what these politicians want said, then it has to be doing a sterling job.
You can tell just how good a job its doing by measuring the amount of vitriol said politicians and supporters spew when confronted with it :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29867429</id>
	<title>Re:BBC is a weird beastie</title>
	<author>CommanderIsm</author>
	<datestamp>1256468940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>the BBC is a great radio/TV station with lots of channels covering lots of tastes.
having said that the news service is most suspect - its flagship morning news accidentally reported the truth concerning 'weapons of mass destruction' once one morning very early on when a reporter said that downing street knew that they believed iraq had none. - he was fired for his trouble.
nowadays when they report on palestine they do so from a jewish perspective and from israel and not the occupied territories eg. asking an israeli spokesman about palestinian issues - and with no history or background of the theft of land or the destruction of houses belonging to palestinians.
i would say the scripts are at least put in front of the powers that be before broadcast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the BBC is a great radio/TV station with lots of channels covering lots of tastes .
having said that the news service is most suspect - its flagship morning news accidentally reported the truth concerning 'weapons of mass destruction ' once one morning very early on when a reporter said that downing street knew that they believed iraq had none .
- he was fired for his trouble .
nowadays when they report on palestine they do so from a jewish perspective and from israel and not the occupied territories eg .
asking an israeli spokesman about palestinian issues - and with no history or background of the theft of land or the destruction of houses belonging to palestinians .
i would say the scripts are at least put in front of the powers that be before broadcast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the BBC is a great radio/TV station with lots of channels covering lots of tastes.
having said that the news service is most suspect - its flagship morning news accidentally reported the truth concerning 'weapons of mass destruction' once one morning very early on when a reporter said that downing street knew that they believed iraq had none.
- he was fired for his trouble.
nowadays when they report on palestine they do so from a jewish perspective and from israel and not the occupied territories eg.
asking an israeli spokesman about palestinian issues - and with no history or background of the theft of land or the destruction of houses belonging to palestinians.
i would say the scripts are at least put in front of the powers that be before broadcast.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861351</id>
	<title>Re:BBC is a weird beastie</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1256395020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The BBC's charter has various requirements to show balance in political reporting and the government is denied direct mechanisms to interfere in editorial decisions. This generally works pretty well and the BBC is widely considered a fairly accurate, relatively unbiased news source.</i></p><p>unless you are an American Republican. I mentioned the Beeb as a fairly unbiased "outside" news source to a Republican friend of mine and the venom was immediate. Yes, I think they do a pretty good job. But it does seem that the Republican party today is somewhere to the right of the Nazi party.</p><p>PS: Godwin's law, blah blah...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC 's charter has various requirements to show balance in political reporting and the government is denied direct mechanisms to interfere in editorial decisions .
This generally works pretty well and the BBC is widely considered a fairly accurate , relatively unbiased news source.unless you are an American Republican .
I mentioned the Beeb as a fairly unbiased " outside " news source to a Republican friend of mine and the venom was immediate .
Yes , I think they do a pretty good job .
But it does seem that the Republican party today is somewhere to the right of the Nazi party.PS : Godwin 's law , blah blah.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC's charter has various requirements to show balance in political reporting and the government is denied direct mechanisms to interfere in editorial decisions.
This generally works pretty well and the BBC is widely considered a fairly accurate, relatively unbiased news source.unless you are an American Republican.
I mentioned the Beeb as a fairly unbiased "outside" news source to a Republican friend of mine and the venom was immediate.
Yes, I think they do a pretty good job.
But it does seem that the Republican party today is somewhere to the right of the Nazi party.PS: Godwin's law, blah blah...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861843</id>
	<title>Forgot the most important part</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1256400060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ul> <li>Give me the <b>full</b> episodes</li></ul><p>
Those of us who have BBC America are getting, generally, 2/3rds of the programming <b>per show</b> that our British counterparts get.  This can be especially egregious in some Top Gear episodes where 20 minutes is removed to make room for commercials.  And then to make matters worse they sell those same butchered episodes to us in American stores as well.<br> <br>
I would <b>happily</b> pay to see the full Top Gear episodes that I am missing, especially from the seasons that have never been shown in America.  Are you listening, BBC?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give me the full episodes Those of us who have BBC America are getting , generally , 2/3rds of the programming per show that our British counterparts get .
This can be especially egregious in some Top Gear episodes where 20 minutes is removed to make room for commercials .
And then to make matters worse they sell those same butchered episodes to us in American stores as well .
I would happily pay to see the full Top Gear episodes that I am missing , especially from the seasons that have never been shown in America .
Are you listening , BBC ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Give me the full episodes
Those of us who have BBC America are getting, generally, 2/3rds of the programming per show that our British counterparts get.
This can be especially egregious in some Top Gear episodes where 20 minutes is removed to make room for commercials.
And then to make matters worse they sell those same butchered episodes to us in American stores as well.
I would happily pay to see the full Top Gear episodes that I am missing, especially from the seasons that have never been shown in America.
Are you listening, BBC?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860907</id>
	<title>British TV Production</title>
	<author>sunfly</author>
	<datestamp>1256389380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really enjoy many British TV shows over their American counterpart.  For example Gordon Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares in the US is produced as a reality show, and keys in on the personality conflicts and yelling.  The British version of the same show keys on what is wrong with the business and food, and shows Gordon's softer side.  The difference is night and day.  British movies on Netflix actually have a plot, and not the same formula movie's the US audience has to eat.  </p><p>That said, would not pay money to watch the channel, but would go along with a localized ad supported version.</p><p>State run TV Stations.  There is at least one person thinks this is a good idea??  Yikes!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really enjoy many British TV shows over their American counterpart .
For example Gordon Ramsay 's Kitchen Nightmares in the US is produced as a reality show , and keys in on the personality conflicts and yelling .
The British version of the same show keys on what is wrong with the business and food , and shows Gordon 's softer side .
The difference is night and day .
British movies on Netflix actually have a plot , and not the same formula movie 's the US audience has to eat .
That said , would not pay money to watch the channel , but would go along with a localized ad supported version.State run TV Stations .
There is at least one person thinks this is a good idea ? ?
Yikes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really enjoy many British TV shows over their American counterpart.
For example Gordon Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares in the US is produced as a reality show, and keys in on the personality conflicts and yelling.
The British version of the same show keys on what is wrong with the business and food, and shows Gordon's softer side.
The difference is night and day.
British movies on Netflix actually have a plot, and not the same formula movie's the US audience has to eat.
That said, would not pay money to watch the channel, but would go along with a localized ad supported version.State run TV Stations.
There is at least one person thinks this is a good idea??
Yikes!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863029</id>
	<title>If this is true, then about time too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256463420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd certainly pay to watch on demand, or even a fixed rate for unlimited BBC viewing. But as dwater says, NOT PayPal please folks.

I can only get BBC World on satellite here in Morocco, and that is appalling, truly, appalling. The BBC should be ashamed of putting their name to the drivel they broadcast most of the time-though I will admit that some slots are bearable-and as for the number of breaks! They spend more time self-promoting their programmes than actually showing them, and I really don't need a timecheck in all of the timezones every fifteen minutes (yes I know, it's so they can show their sponsor's name).

Don't get me going on the weather - has the BBC forgotten that Africa and Europe exist as continents? Is it really necessary to focus so much on the Middle East and India?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd certainly pay to watch on demand , or even a fixed rate for unlimited BBC viewing .
But as dwater says , NOT PayPal please folks .
I can only get BBC World on satellite here in Morocco , and that is appalling , truly , appalling .
The BBC should be ashamed of putting their name to the drivel they broadcast most of the time-though I will admit that some slots are bearable-and as for the number of breaks !
They spend more time self-promoting their programmes than actually showing them , and I really do n't need a timecheck in all of the timezones every fifteen minutes ( yes I know , it 's so they can show their sponsor 's name ) .
Do n't get me going on the weather - has the BBC forgotten that Africa and Europe exist as continents ?
Is it really necessary to focus so much on the Middle East and India ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd certainly pay to watch on demand, or even a fixed rate for unlimited BBC viewing.
But as dwater says, NOT PayPal please folks.
I can only get BBC World on satellite here in Morocco, and that is appalling, truly, appalling.
The BBC should be ashamed of putting their name to the drivel they broadcast most of the time-though I will admit that some slots are bearable-and as for the number of breaks!
They spend more time self-promoting their programmes than actually showing them, and I really don't need a timecheck in all of the timezones every fifteen minutes (yes I know, it's so they can show their sponsor's name).
Don't get me going on the weather - has the BBC forgotten that Africa and Europe exist as continents?
Is it really necessary to focus so much on the Middle East and India?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29864283</id>
	<title>Re:hugely popular?</title>
	<author>Goffee71</author>
	<datestamp>1256482920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are kidding right, If my kids want to watch Cbeebies, I can just pop them on the spare laptop and off they go! They don't care about DRM, they can use the interface. I think you're just too set in your old-fashioned ways</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are kidding right , If my kids want to watch Cbeebies , I can just pop them on the spare laptop and off they go !
They do n't care about DRM , they can use the interface .
I think you 're just too set in your old-fashioned ways</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are kidding right, If my kids want to watch Cbeebies, I can just pop them on the spare laptop and off they go!
They don't care about DRM, they can use the interface.
I think you're just too set in your old-fashioned ways</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29868415</id>
	<title>About time</title>
	<author>sixsixtysix</author>
	<datestamp>1256482260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's about time someone makes the smart play. The internet should have gotten rid of all traditional regions, zones, etc in the media markets years ago. Global network should equal global licensing, instead of bullshit maneuvers to raise the bottom line.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about time someone makes the smart play .
The internet should have gotten rid of all traditional regions , zones , etc in the media markets years ago .
Global network should equal global licensing , instead of bullshit maneuvers to raise the bottom line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about time someone makes the smart play.
The internet should have gotten rid of all traditional regions, zones, etc in the media markets years ago.
Global network should equal global licensing, instead of bullshit maneuvers to raise the bottom line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860571</id>
	<title>Nifty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256386020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, it is!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it is !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it is!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863537</id>
	<title>Re:BBC is a weird beastie</title>
	<author>laughing\_badger</author>
	<datestamp>1256474820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The BBC is a really weird organisation. It's a state-run TV channel, which usually we assume means "propaganda mouthpiece". The BBC is set up in a peculiar way whereby the state collects the money for them but the government is not allowed (in theory) control over the BBC itself. The BBC's charter has various requirements to show balance in political reporting and the government is denied direct mechanisms to interfere in editorial decisions.</p></div><p>It wasn't until I read it put in these terms that I realised that this is really a model that we should be looking at for providing education and medicine in this country. It would stop political interference and ensure that decisions on curriculum etc. were made by experts in the fields rather than as the latest government knee-jerk reaction.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC is a really weird organisation .
It 's a state-run TV channel , which usually we assume means " propaganda mouthpiece " .
The BBC is set up in a peculiar way whereby the state collects the money for them but the government is not allowed ( in theory ) control over the BBC itself .
The BBC 's charter has various requirements to show balance in political reporting and the government is denied direct mechanisms to interfere in editorial decisions.It was n't until I read it put in these terms that I realised that this is really a model that we should be looking at for providing education and medicine in this country .
It would stop political interference and ensure that decisions on curriculum etc .
were made by experts in the fields rather than as the latest government knee-jerk reaction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC is a really weird organisation.
It's a state-run TV channel, which usually we assume means "propaganda mouthpiece".
The BBC is set up in a peculiar way whereby the state collects the money for them but the government is not allowed (in theory) control over the BBC itself.
The BBC's charter has various requirements to show balance in political reporting and the government is denied direct mechanisms to interfere in editorial decisions.It wasn't until I read it put in these terms that I realised that this is really a model that we should be looking at for providing education and medicine in this country.
It would stop political interference and ensure that decisions on curriculum etc.
were made by experts in the fields rather than as the latest government knee-jerk reaction.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860805</id>
	<title>$10 per episode?</title>
	<author>fartymenams</author>
	<datestamp>1256388420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the article: "Luke Bradley Jones, chief of the BBC Worldwide&rsquo;s digital operations in the US, said in a statement: &ldquo;Millions of people love Torchwood and would probably pay ten bucks an episode rather than two bucks&rdquo;.

Or they'll laugh all their way to usenet or bittorrent. $10 per episode?!</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : " Luke Bradley Jones , chief of the BBC Worldwide    s digital operations in the US , said in a statement :    Millions of people love Torchwood and would probably pay ten bucks an episode rather than two bucks    .
Or they 'll laugh all their way to usenet or bittorrent .
$ 10 per episode ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article: "Luke Bradley Jones, chief of the BBC Worldwide’s digital operations in the US, said in a statement: “Millions of people love Torchwood and would probably pay ten bucks an episode rather than two bucks”.
Or they'll laugh all their way to usenet or bittorrent.
$10 per episode?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860965</id>
	<title>Or...</title>
	<author>esp\_ex</author>
	<datestamp>1256389980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can watch it now by going through a proxy server based in the UK. That's what I do to watch Top Gear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can watch it now by going through a proxy server based in the UK .
That 's what I do to watch Top Gear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can watch it now by going through a proxy server based in the UK.
That's what I do to watch Top Gear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860655</id>
	<title>Re:Is it still Windows only?</title>
	<author>bramp</author>
	<datestamp>1256386800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nope, works great on any OS/browser with Flash</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , works great on any OS/browser with Flash</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, works great on any OS/browser with Flash</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863433</id>
	<title>Re:BBC is a weird beastie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256472360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You should ask him if he thinks Fox News would invite the leader of the KKK on for an hour of serious discussion. After all, the horribly biased BBC just had the leader of the British National Party on Question Time for an hour.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should ask him if he thinks Fox News would invite the leader of the KKK on for an hour of serious discussion .
After all , the horribly biased BBC just had the leader of the British National Party on Question Time for an hour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should ask him if he thinks Fox News would invite the leader of the KKK on for an hour of serious discussion.
After all, the horribly biased BBC just had the leader of the British National Party on Question Time for an hour.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861999</id>
	<title>Re:Give me this:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256401740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, I've had similar thoughts about Google's free services.  Only in that case, what I'd pay, say dollars per year, for would be the absence of ads, pretty convincing privacy guarantees and some pretty minimal security guarantees...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I 've had similar thoughts about Google 's free services .
Only in that case , what I 'd pay , say dollars per year , for would be the absence of ads , pretty convincing privacy guarantees and some pretty minimal security guarantees.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I've had similar thoughts about Google's free services.
Only in that case, what I'd pay, say dollars per year, for would be the absence of ads, pretty convincing privacy guarantees and some pretty minimal security guarantees...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860807</id>
	<title>QI Please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256388420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope they include QI in their international lineup. I've been waiting for that show to become available here since I first saw it on YouTube, but no US station has agreed to carry it. These days such videos are taken down pretty quickly, so a legitimate feed of BBC programs would be very welcome indeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope they include QI in their international lineup .
I 've been waiting for that show to become available here since I first saw it on YouTube , but no US station has agreed to carry it .
These days such videos are taken down pretty quickly , so a legitimate feed of BBC programs would be very welcome indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope they include QI in their international lineup.
I've been waiting for that show to become available here since I first saw it on YouTube, but no US station has agreed to carry it.
These days such videos are taken down pretty quickly, so a legitimate feed of BBC programs would be very welcome indeed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863161</id>
	<title>Yeah, it shows just how out of touch they are</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1256466000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is one of those quotes that has to be remembered. Paying 10 dollars (and most likely 10 euros) for a SINGLE tv episode...
</p><p>This guy is not just out of touch with reality, he might actually be classified as insane. Imagine having to pay that for something like well, Torchwood. It has 3 seasons, each 13 eps long, so lets make it an even 30x 10 is 300 dollars for this show alone.
</p><p>Season 1 on DVD costs 47 dollars (on amazon) and 2 costs 57. Lets assume season 3 costs 60  and you have to pay on the iPlayer DOUBLE the price but without any physical production costs.
</p><p>And I thought iTunes was a ripoff (same price, massicaly reduced production costs === fat profits for someone), but iTunes only charges the SAME price as the CD. Not DOUBLE!
</p><p> <b>The great "If content produces were in charge of other industries" list</b>
</p><ul>
<li>Frozen pizza from a supermarket would cost more then pizza delivered to your house. A pizza recipe would cost more then either one.</li>
<li>Reading the back cover of a book would require a fee.</li>
<li>Libraries would be outlawed.</li>
<li>Repairing your own car would be a criminal violation.</li>
<li>You could only put your petrol from Shell into vehilces approved by Shell and only if you don't take passengers with you. Putting petrol in a lighter would see you in jail.</li>
<li>Reading a book to your child would require you to pay a performance fee.</li>
<li>Coloring books would be outlawed, unauthorized use of a copyrighted work to use a derivative product.</li>
<li>Any advances that lead to savings will result in a price increase.</li>
<li>There would be no classic coke. The recipe for new coke would be "improved" each year with taste-testing done only on 12yr old girls and people who think full house if a comedy.</li>
<li>Your car would show a message every 10 miles, telling to make sure you buy the car, that you just bought.</li>
<li>A high priced hooker you payed to show you a good time, would go to bed with a headache, just like your wife and say "it is reality prostitution!"</li>
<li>When you quote, "640k should be enough for everyone" Bill Gates charges you a performance fee. Paraphrase it and you are sued for illegal use of his copyright work.</li>
<li>If you commit three traffic violations, you would be banned from the streets.</li>
<li>If you are caught lying to your customers three times, you would be banned from doing business.</li>
<li>If you made three bad tv shows, you would be banned from making tv ever again... bye bye BBC.</li>
</ul></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of those quotes that has to be remembered .
Paying 10 dollars ( and most likely 10 euros ) for a SINGLE tv episode.. . This guy is not just out of touch with reality , he might actually be classified as insane .
Imagine having to pay that for something like well , Torchwood .
It has 3 seasons , each 13 eps long , so lets make it an even 30x 10 is 300 dollars for this show alone .
Season 1 on DVD costs 47 dollars ( on amazon ) and 2 costs 57 .
Lets assume season 3 costs 60 and you have to pay on the iPlayer DOUBLE the price but without any physical production costs .
And I thought iTunes was a ripoff ( same price , massicaly reduced production costs = = = fat profits for someone ) , but iTunes only charges the SAME price as the CD .
Not DOUBLE !
The great " If content produces were in charge of other industries " list Frozen pizza from a supermarket would cost more then pizza delivered to your house .
A pizza recipe would cost more then either one .
Reading the back cover of a book would require a fee .
Libraries would be outlawed .
Repairing your own car would be a criminal violation .
You could only put your petrol from Shell into vehilces approved by Shell and only if you do n't take passengers with you .
Putting petrol in a lighter would see you in jail .
Reading a book to your child would require you to pay a performance fee .
Coloring books would be outlawed , unauthorized use of a copyrighted work to use a derivative product .
Any advances that lead to savings will result in a price increase .
There would be no classic coke .
The recipe for new coke would be " improved " each year with taste-testing done only on 12yr old girls and people who think full house if a comedy .
Your car would show a message every 10 miles , telling to make sure you buy the car , that you just bought .
A high priced hooker you payed to show you a good time , would go to bed with a headache , just like your wife and say " it is reality prostitution !
" When you quote , " 640k should be enough for everyone " Bill Gates charges you a performance fee .
Paraphrase it and you are sued for illegal use of his copyright work .
If you commit three traffic violations , you would be banned from the streets .
If you are caught lying to your customers three times , you would be banned from doing business .
If you made three bad tv shows , you would be banned from making tv ever again... bye bye BBC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of those quotes that has to be remembered.
Paying 10 dollars (and most likely 10 euros) for a SINGLE tv episode...
This guy is not just out of touch with reality, he might actually be classified as insane.
Imagine having to pay that for something like well, Torchwood.
It has 3 seasons, each 13 eps long, so lets make it an even 30x 10 is 300 dollars for this show alone.
Season 1 on DVD costs 47 dollars (on amazon) and 2 costs 57.
Lets assume season 3 costs 60  and you have to pay on the iPlayer DOUBLE the price but without any physical production costs.
And I thought iTunes was a ripoff (same price, massicaly reduced production costs === fat profits for someone), but iTunes only charges the SAME price as the CD.
Not DOUBLE!
The great "If content produces were in charge of other industries" list

Frozen pizza from a supermarket would cost more then pizza delivered to your house.
A pizza recipe would cost more then either one.
Reading the back cover of a book would require a fee.
Libraries would be outlawed.
Repairing your own car would be a criminal violation.
You could only put your petrol from Shell into vehilces approved by Shell and only if you don't take passengers with you.
Putting petrol in a lighter would see you in jail.
Reading a book to your child would require you to pay a performance fee.
Coloring books would be outlawed, unauthorized use of a copyrighted work to use a derivative product.
Any advances that lead to savings will result in a price increase.
There would be no classic coke.
The recipe for new coke would be "improved" each year with taste-testing done only on 12yr old girls and people who think full house if a comedy.
Your car would show a message every 10 miles, telling to make sure you buy the car, that you just bought.
A high priced hooker you payed to show you a good time, would go to bed with a headache, just like your wife and say "it is reality prostitution!
"
When you quote, "640k should be enough for everyone" Bill Gates charges you a performance fee.
Paraphrase it and you are sued for illegal use of his copyright work.
If you commit three traffic violations, you would be banned from the streets.
If you are caught lying to your customers three times, you would be banned from doing business.
If you made three bad tv shows, you would be banned from making tv ever again... bye bye BBC.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863257</id>
	<title>Re:BBC is a weird beastie</title>
	<author>Baki</author>
	<datestamp>1256468460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In fact a similar situation exists in many european countries: The german ARD and ZDF are are also state channels and by law all groups in society are represented and have influence. The same for dutch (although the details work differently) and swiss state TV.</p><p>For example in dutch state TV, political, religious or other groups get a # of hours depending on the number of members they have. There are strict limits regarding programming: a max. amount of advertisement and the nature thereof (not misleading, not hidden advertisement incorporated inside shows etc.), the division of time of entertainment, culture, news and politics etc.</p><p>I like this system because it ensures that next to commercial pulp a certain amount of guaranteed quality TV exists that is affordable for everyone (i.e. no need to subscribe to pay TV) and objective information (news, political commentaries of various opinions) is available to everyone, not dominated by big money or lobby groups, next to commercial and pay-TV offerings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact a similar situation exists in many european countries : The german ARD and ZDF are are also state channels and by law all groups in society are represented and have influence .
The same for dutch ( although the details work differently ) and swiss state TV.For example in dutch state TV , political , religious or other groups get a # of hours depending on the number of members they have .
There are strict limits regarding programming : a max .
amount of advertisement and the nature thereof ( not misleading , not hidden advertisement incorporated inside shows etc .
) , the division of time of entertainment , culture , news and politics etc.I like this system because it ensures that next to commercial pulp a certain amount of guaranteed quality TV exists that is affordable for everyone ( i.e .
no need to subscribe to pay TV ) and objective information ( news , political commentaries of various opinions ) is available to everyone , not dominated by big money or lobby groups , next to commercial and pay-TV offerings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact a similar situation exists in many european countries: The german ARD and ZDF are are also state channels and by law all groups in society are represented and have influence.
The same for dutch (although the details work differently) and swiss state TV.For example in dutch state TV, political, religious or other groups get a # of hours depending on the number of members they have.
There are strict limits regarding programming: a max.
amount of advertisement and the nature thereof (not misleading, not hidden advertisement incorporated inside shows etc.
), the division of time of entertainment, culture, news and politics etc.I like this system because it ensures that next to commercial pulp a certain amount of guaranteed quality TV exists that is affordable for everyone (i.e.
no need to subscribe to pay TV) and objective information (news, political commentaries of various opinions) is available to everyone, not dominated by big money or lobby groups, next to commercial and pay-TV offerings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863699</id>
	<title>Re:As a British taxpayer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256477220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair I think this is about something else. Both the government and the opposition parties have spoken of giving some of the TV license funds to other channels such as ITV so that they can better compete with the BBC. As such I think the BBC is looking for other additional revenue streams. This is a good thing for those of us in the UK because although we wont be paying less for the license, we will be getting the same quality BBC, whilst also potentially getting better quality from other channels like ITV.</p><p>Even if the government doesn't spread the TV license a little more I don't mind the BBC getting more cash - it annoys me that shows like Spooks only run for like 7 episodes, they're over before they've started half the time. If it means the BBC can invest in getting shows that are as good as spooks (although admittedly it's got shitter in recent years) on for a meaningful period like US TV shows - 20 - 25 episodes then that's awesome news.</p><p>That said, the BBC is worthless for people like me now, apart from documentaries like Planet Earth and Life there's nothing worth watching, because I'm one of the few that doesn't enjoy doctor who or one of the many spinoffs of it the BBC is obsessed with producing. I prefer TV shows like 24 or war dramas of which we get no such thing in the UK nowadays. I'll admit I actually used to like Eastenders but then they made the decision to remove the gangster storylines and related characters which made it infinitely more dull. No, apparently we have to watch cheesy sci-fi (sorry doctor who fans, I know you'll hate me for that! - I just like my sci-fi a bit more serious that's all), Strictly come dancing, Generic Period Drama #3253261, Generic Moral Outrage Show #43364363 (See Panorama, The One show etc.), or Generic Cooking Show.</p><p>In other words, the spread of shows on the BBC is a bit shit nowadays. It mostly seems to focus on stuff middle aged women enjoy judging by the people I know who actually watch the stuff above which is pretty much all there is. It's not like I even find BBC news that great on TV (although their website is excellent) compared to other channel's news offerings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair I think this is about something else .
Both the government and the opposition parties have spoken of giving some of the TV license funds to other channels such as ITV so that they can better compete with the BBC .
As such I think the BBC is looking for other additional revenue streams .
This is a good thing for those of us in the UK because although we wont be paying less for the license , we will be getting the same quality BBC , whilst also potentially getting better quality from other channels like ITV.Even if the government does n't spread the TV license a little more I do n't mind the BBC getting more cash - it annoys me that shows like Spooks only run for like 7 episodes , they 're over before they 've started half the time .
If it means the BBC can invest in getting shows that are as good as spooks ( although admittedly it 's got shitter in recent years ) on for a meaningful period like US TV shows - 20 - 25 episodes then that 's awesome news.That said , the BBC is worthless for people like me now , apart from documentaries like Planet Earth and Life there 's nothing worth watching , because I 'm one of the few that does n't enjoy doctor who or one of the many spinoffs of it the BBC is obsessed with producing .
I prefer TV shows like 24 or war dramas of which we get no such thing in the UK nowadays .
I 'll admit I actually used to like Eastenders but then they made the decision to remove the gangster storylines and related characters which made it infinitely more dull .
No , apparently we have to watch cheesy sci-fi ( sorry doctor who fans , I know you 'll hate me for that !
- I just like my sci-fi a bit more serious that 's all ) , Strictly come dancing , Generic Period Drama # 3253261 , Generic Moral Outrage Show # 43364363 ( See Panorama , The One show etc .
) , or Generic Cooking Show.In other words , the spread of shows on the BBC is a bit shit nowadays .
It mostly seems to focus on stuff middle aged women enjoy judging by the people I know who actually watch the stuff above which is pretty much all there is .
It 's not like I even find BBC news that great on TV ( although their website is excellent ) compared to other channel 's news offerings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair I think this is about something else.
Both the government and the opposition parties have spoken of giving some of the TV license funds to other channels such as ITV so that they can better compete with the BBC.
As such I think the BBC is looking for other additional revenue streams.
This is a good thing for those of us in the UK because although we wont be paying less for the license, we will be getting the same quality BBC, whilst also potentially getting better quality from other channels like ITV.Even if the government doesn't spread the TV license a little more I don't mind the BBC getting more cash - it annoys me that shows like Spooks only run for like 7 episodes, they're over before they've started half the time.
If it means the BBC can invest in getting shows that are as good as spooks (although admittedly it's got shitter in recent years) on for a meaningful period like US TV shows - 20 - 25 episodes then that's awesome news.That said, the BBC is worthless for people like me now, apart from documentaries like Planet Earth and Life there's nothing worth watching, because I'm one of the few that doesn't enjoy doctor who or one of the many spinoffs of it the BBC is obsessed with producing.
I prefer TV shows like 24 or war dramas of which we get no such thing in the UK nowadays.
I'll admit I actually used to like Eastenders but then they made the decision to remove the gangster storylines and related characters which made it infinitely more dull.
No, apparently we have to watch cheesy sci-fi (sorry doctor who fans, I know you'll hate me for that!
- I just like my sci-fi a bit more serious that's all), Strictly come dancing, Generic Period Drama #3253261, Generic Moral Outrage Show #43364363 (See Panorama, The One show etc.
), or Generic Cooking Show.In other words, the spread of shows on the BBC is a bit shit nowadays.
It mostly seems to focus on stuff middle aged women enjoy judging by the people I know who actually watch the stuff above which is pretty much all there is.
It's not like I even find BBC news that great on TV (although their website is excellent) compared to other channel's news offerings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860583</id>
	<title>Is it still Windows only?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256386080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just how much of an international audience do they expect when so many countries shun or don't trust Microsoft products?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just how much of an international audience do they expect when so many countries shun or do n't trust Microsoft products ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just how much of an international audience do they expect when so many countries shun or don't trust Microsoft products?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29864383</id>
	<title>Re:QI Please</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1256483880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have a multiregion DVD player, you can always <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/QI-Complete-BBC-1-DVD/dp/B000IZK534/ref=sr\_1\_2?ie=UTF8&amp;s=dvd&amp;qid=1256480008&amp;sr=8-2" title="amazon.co.uk">buy the DVDs</a> [amazon.co.uk], or the books if you don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have a multiregion DVD player , you can always buy the DVDs [ amazon.co.uk ] , or the books if you do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have a multiregion DVD player, you can always buy the DVDs [amazon.co.uk], or the books if you don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860973</id>
	<title>Re:$10 per episode?</title>
	<author>ProteusQ</author>
	<datestamp>1256390040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who are is this guy kidding?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who are is this guy kidding ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who are is this guy kidding?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863873</id>
	<title>Oh, well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256479200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The one thing that we got that the US didn't is now available to Americans. Sigh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The one thing that we got that the US did n't is now available to Americans .
Sigh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one thing that we got that the US didn't is now available to Americans.
Sigh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860959</id>
	<title>Re:$10 per episode?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256389920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From the article: "Luke Bradley Jones, chief of the BBC Worldwide&rsquo;s digital operations in the US, said in a statement: &ldquo;Millions of people love Torchwood and would probably pay ten bucks an episode rather than two bucks&rdquo;.</p><p>Or they'll laugh all their way to usenet or bittorrent. $10 per episode?!</p></div><p>Also the BBC is infamous for rediculously low budgets. They make the episodes for next to nothing then boast that people will pay $10 each. How about proper budgets and actually picking up popular shows for a new season? Hit shows often run one season and more than three is extremely rare. I've often wondered if they canceled shows based on popularity. In the US they seem to cancel them based on quality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : " Luke Bradley Jones , chief of the BBC Worldwide    s digital operations in the US , said in a statement :    Millions of people love Torchwood and would probably pay ten bucks an episode rather than two bucks    .Or they 'll laugh all their way to usenet or bittorrent .
$ 10 per episode ?
! Also the BBC is infamous for rediculously low budgets .
They make the episodes for next to nothing then boast that people will pay $ 10 each .
How about proper budgets and actually picking up popular shows for a new season ?
Hit shows often run one season and more than three is extremely rare .
I 've often wondered if they canceled shows based on popularity .
In the US they seem to cancel them based on quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article: "Luke Bradley Jones, chief of the BBC Worldwide’s digital operations in the US, said in a statement: “Millions of people love Torchwood and would probably pay ten bucks an episode rather than two bucks”.Or they'll laugh all their way to usenet or bittorrent.
$10 per episode?
!Also the BBC is infamous for rediculously low budgets.
They make the episodes for next to nothing then boast that people will pay $10 each.
How about proper budgets and actually picking up popular shows for a new season?
Hit shows often run one season and more than three is extremely rare.
I've often wondered if they canceled shows based on popularity.
In the US they seem to cancel them based on quality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861495</id>
	<title>About time</title>
	<author>stokessd</author>
	<datestamp>1256396700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I emailed them years ago asking how to pay for their service.  They responded that they have no way to let me pay for the service, or more importantly had no way of providing my content.  So I had to go another route.  I pay for a UK proxy; specifically the VPN service:</p><p>http://www.ukproxyserver.co.uk/</p><p>IF the BBC has VOD, that still won't help with ITV, SKY, and Channel 4 etc.</p><p>In fact I'm watching to Russell Howard's Good News Episode 1.  Review:  it's OK, but he's not nearly as funny solo as he is on Mock The Week.</p><p>Sheldon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I emailed them years ago asking how to pay for their service .
They responded that they have no way to let me pay for the service , or more importantly had no way of providing my content .
So I had to go another route .
I pay for a UK proxy ; specifically the VPN service : http : //www.ukproxyserver.co.uk/IF the BBC has VOD , that still wo n't help with ITV , SKY , and Channel 4 etc.In fact I 'm watching to Russell Howard 's Good News Episode 1 .
Review : it 's OK , but he 's not nearly as funny solo as he is on Mock The Week.Sheldon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I emailed them years ago asking how to pay for their service.
They responded that they have no way to let me pay for the service, or more importantly had no way of providing my content.
So I had to go another route.
I pay for a UK proxy; specifically the VPN service:http://www.ukproxyserver.co.uk/IF the BBC has VOD, that still won't help with ITV, SKY, and Channel 4 etc.In fact I'm watching to Russell Howard's Good News Episode 1.
Review:  it's OK, but he's not nearly as funny solo as he is on Mock The Week.Sheldon</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29862057</id>
	<title>VOD - profit vs. use</title>
	<author>earlymon</author>
	<datestamp>1256402400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't mind VOD / pay for new movies.  I can see people paying for latest-run TV shows, I guess.</p><p>And there's a lot of BBC stuff I'd like to be able to stream, legally - with some sort of reasonable model.</p><p>I'd like to see Doctor Who and whatever that series was that had the British flying around trying to sell franchises, as well as many others - any of the early BlackAdders come to mind as well.</p><p>But these are OLD tv shows. You can make a few bucks selling ads and selling ads for DVD / Blu-ray discs.  Consider the following VOD:</p><p><a href="http://www.slashcontrol.com/free-tv-shows/babylon-5" title="slashcontrol.com">http://www.slashcontrol.com/free-tv-shows/babylon-5</a> [slashcontrol.com] (yes - all five seasons)</p><p>Next ones go without saying:</p><p><a href="http://www.hulu.com/" title="hulu.com">http://www.hulu.com/</a> [hulu.com]</p><p><a href="http://www.crackle.com/" title="crackle.com">http://www.crackle.com/</a> [crackle.com]</p><p>And here's the best content manager I know:</p><p><a href="http://getmiro.com/" title="getmiro.com">http://getmiro.com/</a> [getmiro.com]</p><p>Note to BBC - I hear your iplayer is working now.  Great.  We don't need the DRM or the extra charges for shows that will come around in rerun on the same non-tiered channels we saw them on outside of your country in the first place - cheers, thanks a lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't mind VOD / pay for new movies .
I can see people paying for latest-run TV shows , I guess.And there 's a lot of BBC stuff I 'd like to be able to stream , legally - with some sort of reasonable model.I 'd like to see Doctor Who and whatever that series was that had the British flying around trying to sell franchises , as well as many others - any of the early BlackAdders come to mind as well.But these are OLD tv shows .
You can make a few bucks selling ads and selling ads for DVD / Blu-ray discs .
Consider the following VOD : http : //www.slashcontrol.com/free-tv-shows/babylon-5 [ slashcontrol.com ] ( yes - all five seasons ) Next ones go without saying : http : //www.hulu.com/ [ hulu.com ] http : //www.crackle.com/ [ crackle.com ] And here 's the best content manager I know : http : //getmiro.com/ [ getmiro.com ] Note to BBC - I hear your iplayer is working now .
Great. We do n't need the DRM or the extra charges for shows that will come around in rerun on the same non-tiered channels we saw them on outside of your country in the first place - cheers , thanks a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't mind VOD / pay for new movies.
I can see people paying for latest-run TV shows, I guess.And there's a lot of BBC stuff I'd like to be able to stream, legally - with some sort of reasonable model.I'd like to see Doctor Who and whatever that series was that had the British flying around trying to sell franchises, as well as many others - any of the early BlackAdders come to mind as well.But these are OLD tv shows.
You can make a few bucks selling ads and selling ads for DVD / Blu-ray discs.
Consider the following VOD:http://www.slashcontrol.com/free-tv-shows/babylon-5 [slashcontrol.com] (yes - all five seasons)Next ones go without saying:http://www.hulu.com/ [hulu.com]http://www.crackle.com/ [crackle.com]And here's the best content manager I know:http://getmiro.com/ [getmiro.com]Note to BBC - I hear your iplayer is working now.
Great.  We don't need the DRM or the extra charges for shows that will come around in rerun on the same non-tiered channels we saw them on outside of your country in the first place - cheers, thanks a lot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860847</id>
	<title>Re:hugely popular?</title>
	<author>Josh04</author>
	<datestamp>1256388840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>As you are not Royalty I'm going to have to ask you to stop using the Royal 'we'. Especially as the article states that, as a Grandmother, Her Majesty should be perfectly capable of using it's 'clumsy' interface.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As you are not Royalty I 'm going to have to ask you to stop using the Royal 'we' .
Especially as the article states that , as a Grandmother , Her Majesty should be perfectly capable of using it 's 'clumsy ' interface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As you are not Royalty I'm going to have to ask you to stop using the Royal 'we'.
Especially as the article states that, as a Grandmother, Her Majesty should be perfectly capable of using it's 'clumsy' interface.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29867069</id>
	<title>Re:BBC is a weird beastie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256464440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes it is. Please note however that the BBC World Service radio broadcasts are not funded from the TV license but directly by the Foreign Office and are therefore a tool of the government in all respects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes it is .
Please note however that the BBC World Service radio broadcasts are not funded from the TV license but directly by the Foreign Office and are therefore a tool of the government in all respects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes it is.
Please note however that the BBC World Service radio broadcasts are not funded from the TV license but directly by the Foreign Office and are therefore a tool of the government in all respects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861219</id>
	<title>I'd subscribe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256392860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've probably watched a hundred or more hours of BBC-broadcast content on Youtube (I'm a big fan of the UK political satire shows like HIGNFY and Mock The Week, among others)  I've always said that if there were a way for me to pay for this content I would, but it's simply unavailable in the US.</p><p>I'm sure the market for those particular shows is niche outside the UK (probably mostly ex-pats, really) but that's what internet distribution excels at!  Since they already have the shows prepared for digital download even meager sales would be pure profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've probably watched a hundred or more hours of BBC-broadcast content on Youtube ( I 'm a big fan of the UK political satire shows like HIGNFY and Mock The Week , among others ) I 've always said that if there were a way for me to pay for this content I would , but it 's simply unavailable in the US.I 'm sure the market for those particular shows is niche outside the UK ( probably mostly ex-pats , really ) but that 's what internet distribution excels at !
Since they already have the shows prepared for digital download even meager sales would be pure profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've probably watched a hundred or more hours of BBC-broadcast content on Youtube (I'm a big fan of the UK political satire shows like HIGNFY and Mock The Week, among others)  I've always said that if there were a way for me to pay for this content I would, but it's simply unavailable in the US.I'm sure the market for those particular shows is niche outside the UK (probably mostly ex-pats, really) but that's what internet distribution excels at!
Since they already have the shows prepared for digital download even meager sales would be pure profit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860915</id>
	<title>Adidas board man Shoes Online Sale Now ,Don't Wait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256389440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Welcome to our website:   Http://www.tntshoes.com<br>We offer grade AAA shoes here with wholesale price! Our shoes have some advantages as following:<br>1) Grade AAA shoes,handbags,t-shirts,belts,sunglass,caps.boots,etc!<br>2) The wholesale price!<br>3) 100\% safe, the best delivery terms!<br>4) No mini order here!<br>5) The best service!<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; OUR WEBSITE:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    Welcome to our website : Http : //www.tntshoes.comWe offer grade AAA shoes here with wholesale price !
Our shoes have some advantages as following : 1 ) Grade AAA shoes,handbags,t-shirts,belts,sunglass,caps.boots,etc ! 2 ) The wholesale price ! 3 ) 100 \ % safe , the best delivery terms ! 4 ) No mini order here ! 5 ) The best service !
    OUR WEBSITE :                                                         YAHOO : shoppertrade @ yahoo.com.cn                                                                 MSN : shoppertrade @ hotmail.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    Welcome to our website:   Http://www.tntshoes.comWe offer grade AAA shoes here with wholesale price!
Our shoes have some advantages as following:1) Grade AAA shoes,handbags,t-shirts,belts,sunglass,caps.boots,etc!2) The wholesale price!3) 100\% safe, the best delivery terms!4) No mini order here!5) The best service!
    OUR WEBSITE:
                                                        YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn
                                                                MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29862457</id>
	<title>Re:British TV Production</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256408940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>State run TV Stations. There is at least one person thinks this is a good idea?? Yikes!</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeah, on this side of the Atlantic we haven't been subjected to decades of right-wing brainwashing about the evils of socialism so we can actually enjoy public services.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>State run TV Stations .
There is at least one person thinks this is a good idea ? ?
Yikes ! Yeah , on this side of the Atlantic we have n't been subjected to decades of right-wing brainwashing about the evils of socialism so we can actually enjoy public services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>State run TV Stations.
There is at least one person thinks this is a good idea??
Yikes!Yeah, on this side of the Atlantic we haven't been subjected to decades of right-wing brainwashing about the evils of socialism so we can actually enjoy public services.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29895333</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256734800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In fact I'm watching to Russell Howard's Good News Episode 1. Review: it's OK, but he's not nearly as funny solo as he is on Mock The Week.</p></div><p>Further to that review I would like to add there was practically no news on it that I would consider to be good news (and I watched the Extra version), the exception from that episode would be about the guy who gave his reward money for helping solve a rape case to the victim, it was mostly humorous news clips rather than good news.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact I 'm watching to Russell Howard 's Good News Episode 1 .
Review : it 's OK , but he 's not nearly as funny solo as he is on Mock The Week.Further to that review I would like to add there was practically no news on it that I would consider to be good news ( and I watched the Extra version ) , the exception from that episode would be about the guy who gave his reward money for helping solve a rape case to the victim , it was mostly humorous news clips rather than good news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact I'm watching to Russell Howard's Good News Episode 1.
Review: it's OK, but he's not nearly as funny solo as he is on Mock The Week.Further to that review I would like to add there was practically no news on it that I would consider to be good news (and I watched the Extra version), the exception from that episode would be about the guy who gave his reward money for helping solve a rape case to the victim, it was mostly humorous news clips rather than good news.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29867803</id>
	<title>Re:QI Please</title>
	<author>VoltageX</author>
	<datestamp>1256473860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It just started airing in Australia (series 6), so maybe the BBC have started to do deals with other networks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It just started airing in Australia ( series 6 ) , so maybe the BBC have started to do deals with other networks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It just started airing in Australia (series 6), so maybe the BBC have started to do deals with other networks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860807</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863683</id>
	<title>Re:BBC is a weird beastie</title>
	<author>Ma8thew</author>
	<datestamp>1256477160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That should indicate to you just how far right the american right wing is compared to the rest of the western world. But I'm not sure I agree with you anyway. The BBC does a good a job of being neutral as it is as possible to do. They report facts, and don't mix editorial content with news.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That should indicate to you just how far right the american right wing is compared to the rest of the western world .
But I 'm not sure I agree with you anyway .
The BBC does a good a job of being neutral as it is as possible to do .
They report facts , and do n't mix editorial content with news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That should indicate to you just how far right the american right wing is compared to the rest of the western world.
But I'm not sure I agree with you anyway.
The BBC does a good a job of being neutral as it is as possible to do.
They report facts, and don't mix editorial content with news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863269</id>
	<title>And subscription is compulsory in the UK because..</title>
	<author>Budenny</author>
	<datestamp>1256468700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its excellent value, its a national treasure, everyone loves it.</p><p>So why exactly does it have to be legally compulsory to subscribe to it if you want to watch any TV?  Why is this the only subscription TV that you are obliged to subscribe to?  Why, if we really want to make it compulsory to subscribe to some TV, do we not allow you to pick the provider of your choice?  Why is it, that if you want to watch the English cricket team go down in flames yet again, you are obliged to subscribe to two TV broadcast services, only one of which provides cricket coverage?</p><p>Try writing to the BBC and telling them you want to cancel your subscription, because you are choosing to use Sky as your premium content provider.  Or you don't want any premium content, you are happy to watch only ad funded TV.</p><p>Why exactly can you not do that?  What would be so terrible if you could?</p><p>The BBC desperately needs competition, and that does not mean other channels that you are permitted to subscribe to in addition to it.  It needs competition on equal terms, where you can subscribe to the BBC, to Channel X, neither, or both, as the mood strikes you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its excellent value , its a national treasure , everyone loves it.So why exactly does it have to be legally compulsory to subscribe to it if you want to watch any TV ?
Why is this the only subscription TV that you are obliged to subscribe to ?
Why , if we really want to make it compulsory to subscribe to some TV , do we not allow you to pick the provider of your choice ?
Why is it , that if you want to watch the English cricket team go down in flames yet again , you are obliged to subscribe to two TV broadcast services , only one of which provides cricket coverage ? Try writing to the BBC and telling them you want to cancel your subscription , because you are choosing to use Sky as your premium content provider .
Or you do n't want any premium content , you are happy to watch only ad funded TV.Why exactly can you not do that ?
What would be so terrible if you could ? The BBC desperately needs competition , and that does not mean other channels that you are permitted to subscribe to in addition to it .
It needs competition on equal terms , where you can subscribe to the BBC , to Channel X , neither , or both , as the mood strikes you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its excellent value, its a national treasure, everyone loves it.So why exactly does it have to be legally compulsory to subscribe to it if you want to watch any TV?
Why is this the only subscription TV that you are obliged to subscribe to?
Why, if we really want to make it compulsory to subscribe to some TV, do we not allow you to pick the provider of your choice?
Why is it, that if you want to watch the English cricket team go down in flames yet again, you are obliged to subscribe to two TV broadcast services, only one of which provides cricket coverage?Try writing to the BBC and telling them you want to cancel your subscription, because you are choosing to use Sky as your premium content provider.
Or you don't want any premium content, you are happy to watch only ad funded TV.Why exactly can you not do that?
What would be so terrible if you could?The BBC desperately needs competition, and that does not mean other channels that you are permitted to subscribe to in addition to it.
It needs competition on equal terms, where you can subscribe to the BBC, to Channel X, neither, or both, as the mood strikes you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861053</id>
	<title>Re:$10 per episode?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256391000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.</p><p>More people are willing to pay $2 than $10.<br>More people are willing to pay 6 sets of $2 than $10.</p><p>Perceived value and actual value differ greatly in peoples minds.<br>Most people won't question paying more than a lump sum because lesser amounts seem more disposable.<br>I certainly know i fall in to this category every so often.</p><p>Plus, cheaper will almost certainly mean larger numbers anyway.  $10 is just way too much for most people to consider paying online when it comes to something they'll probably only watch once and never again.</p><p>If they could add a subscription system where you can get to view as many shows within a month at a reasonable price, i'd pay for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed.More people are willing to pay $ 2 than $ 10.More people are willing to pay 6 sets of $ 2 than $ 10.Perceived value and actual value differ greatly in peoples minds.Most people wo n't question paying more than a lump sum because lesser amounts seem more disposable.I certainly know i fall in to this category every so often.Plus , cheaper will almost certainly mean larger numbers anyway .
$ 10 is just way too much for most people to consider paying online when it comes to something they 'll probably only watch once and never again.If they could add a subscription system where you can get to view as many shows within a month at a reasonable price , i 'd pay for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.More people are willing to pay $2 than $10.More people are willing to pay 6 sets of $2 than $10.Perceived value and actual value differ greatly in peoples minds.Most people won't question paying more than a lump sum because lesser amounts seem more disposable.I certainly know i fall in to this category every so often.Plus, cheaper will almost certainly mean larger numbers anyway.
$10 is just way too much for most people to consider paying online when it comes to something they'll probably only watch once and never again.If they could add a subscription system where you can get to view as many shows within a month at a reasonable price, i'd pay for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29862149</id>
	<title>Don't say we</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1256403840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you mean *I*</p><p>(And you do mean *I*)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you mean * I * ( And you do mean * I * )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you mean *I*(And you do mean *I*)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863663</id>
	<title>Re:$10 per episode?</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1256476860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;They make the episodes for next to nothing then boast that people will pay $10 each.</p><p>So the BBC is your typical government program (or monopoly).  Produces cheap results at exorbitantly high cost.  I am not shocked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; They make the episodes for next to nothing then boast that people will pay $ 10 each.So the BBC is your typical government program ( or monopoly ) .
Produces cheap results at exorbitantly high cost .
I am not shocked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;They make the episodes for next to nothing then boast that people will pay $10 each.So the BBC is your typical government program (or monopoly).
Produces cheap results at exorbitantly high cost.
I am not shocked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860845</id>
	<title>Re:hugely popular?</title>
	<author>Xordan</author>
	<datestamp>1256388780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Works fine for me... Usually I run it on my PS3 so I can watch stuff on my TV (so I haven't noticed it being CPU hungry).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Works fine for me... Usually I run it on my PS3 so I can watch stuff on my TV ( so I have n't noticed it being CPU hungry ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Works fine for me... Usually I run it on my PS3 so I can watch stuff on my TV (so I haven't noticed it being CPU hungry).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29864377</id>
	<title>Re:About time</title>
	<author>FonzCam</author>
	<datestamp>1256483820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For those looking at doing this it's worth knowing that as well as iPlayer there is now <a href="http://www.channel4.com/4od" title="channel4.com" rel="nofollow">4OD</a> [channel4.com], <a href="http://demand.five.tv/" title="demand.five.tv" rel="nofollow">Demand Five</a> [demand.five.tv] and <a href="http://www.itv.com/ITVPlayer" title="itv.com" rel="nofollow">ITVPlayer</a> [itv.com] for all your C4, 5 and ITV watching needs.<br>

They've all ditched their paid for P2P based systems for advertising supported Flash players.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those looking at doing this it 's worth knowing that as well as iPlayer there is now 4OD [ channel4.com ] , Demand Five [ demand.five.tv ] and ITVPlayer [ itv.com ] for all your C4 , 5 and ITV watching needs .
They 've all ditched their paid for P2P based systems for advertising supported Flash players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those looking at doing this it's worth knowing that as well as iPlayer there is now 4OD [channel4.com], Demand Five [demand.five.tv] and ITVPlayer [itv.com] for all your C4, 5 and ITV watching needs.
They've all ditched their paid for P2P based systems for advertising supported Flash players.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861111</id>
	<title>Give me this:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1256391600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>- Doctor Who and Top Gear<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>- PayPal micro-payment as an alternative to watching ads, or where you can't get any ads for.<br>- A price that is somewhere in the range of what you'd get from advertisers.</p><p>Why that price? Because I know what you get for ads on the web. And those prices are so low per individual viewer, that BBC would still make a better profit, by asking 5 cent per show, or something like that. A price that nobody can ever think of as too expensive.</p><p>I would be happy to pay for something that deserves that money.</p><p>Comedy Central should do the same with The Daily Show. Come on. Those prices are like nothing! And you still make a hell of a better profit, as when advertising! And people still can choose to watch the ads, if it's not worth money for them.<br>It's a no-brainer! A win-win!</p><p>You could also let us buy a whole season at once. 65 cent for 13 episodes.</p><p>Oh, and of course I expect to be able to save it right from the player. Because I can save it anyway (After all, it already had to be transferred to my computer, to be watchable!), and using my Firefox add-on is not even any hassle. But the gesture of letting me save it right in your player, will show a friendliness that crates important sympathies.</p><p>P.S.: I'm a bit ill today, and not that fit. so sorry if my sentences look a bit weird to read. ^^ I hope it all makes sense anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>- Doctor Who and Top Gear : ) - PayPal micro-payment as an alternative to watching ads , or where you ca n't get any ads for.- A price that is somewhere in the range of what you 'd get from advertisers.Why that price ?
Because I know what you get for ads on the web .
And those prices are so low per individual viewer , that BBC would still make a better profit , by asking 5 cent per show , or something like that .
A price that nobody can ever think of as too expensive.I would be happy to pay for something that deserves that money.Comedy Central should do the same with The Daily Show .
Come on .
Those prices are like nothing !
And you still make a hell of a better profit , as when advertising !
And people still can choose to watch the ads , if it 's not worth money for them.It 's a no-brainer !
A win-win ! You could also let us buy a whole season at once .
65 cent for 13 episodes.Oh , and of course I expect to be able to save it right from the player .
Because I can save it anyway ( After all , it already had to be transferred to my computer , to be watchable !
) , and using my Firefox add-on is not even any hassle .
But the gesture of letting me save it right in your player , will show a friendliness that crates important sympathies.P.S .
: I 'm a bit ill today , and not that fit .
so sorry if my sentences look a bit weird to read .
^ ^ I hope it all makes sense anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- Doctor Who and Top Gear :)- PayPal micro-payment as an alternative to watching ads, or where you can't get any ads for.- A price that is somewhere in the range of what you'd get from advertisers.Why that price?
Because I know what you get for ads on the web.
And those prices are so low per individual viewer, that BBC would still make a better profit, by asking 5 cent per show, or something like that.
A price that nobody can ever think of as too expensive.I would be happy to pay for something that deserves that money.Comedy Central should do the same with The Daily Show.
Come on.
Those prices are like nothing!
And you still make a hell of a better profit, as when advertising!
And people still can choose to watch the ads, if it's not worth money for them.It's a no-brainer!
A win-win!You could also let us buy a whole season at once.
65 cent for 13 episodes.Oh, and of course I expect to be able to save it right from the player.
Because I can save it anyway (After all, it already had to be transferred to my computer, to be watchable!
), and using my Firefox add-on is not even any hassle.
But the gesture of letting me save it right in your player, will show a friendliness that crates important sympathies.P.S.
: I'm a bit ill today, and not that fit.
so sorry if my sentences look a bit weird to read.
^^ I hope it all makes sense anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29877221</id>
	<title>The Beeb Becomes a Global Entity With This Move</title>
	<author>jbus07</author>
	<datestamp>1256550840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I welcome the expansion of the BBC into the global entertainment scheme. They've been choked off from the rest of the world due to licensing quirks and their stance that entertainment and programming they produce needs to remain with their license-paying audience in Britain. If they do this right, the Beeb will be one more reason I might end up dropping my cable TV altogether and joining the online-only VOD audience.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I welcome the expansion of the BBC into the global entertainment scheme .
They 've been choked off from the rest of the world due to licensing quirks and their stance that entertainment and programming they produce needs to remain with their license-paying audience in Britain .
If they do this right , the Beeb will be one more reason I might end up dropping my cable TV altogether and joining the online-only VOD audience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I welcome the expansion of the BBC into the global entertainment scheme.
They've been choked off from the rest of the world due to licensing quirks and their stance that entertainment and programming they produce needs to remain with their license-paying audience in Britain.
If they do this right, the Beeb will be one more reason I might end up dropping my cable TV altogether and joining the online-only VOD audience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29868685</id>
	<title>Re:$10 per episode?</title>
	<author>Macgrrl</author>
	<datestamp>1256485560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That explains the pricing structure on BBC DVDs at the local DVD store.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p><p>I keep wanting to buy Torchwood and Dr Who, but it costs 4 times the price I pay for the average HBO series.</p><p>Lets not even start on the price of old series like Blakes 7, which have not dropped in the several years they have been out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That explains the pricing structure on BBC DVDs at the local DVD store .
: ( I keep wanting to buy Torchwood and Dr Who , but it costs 4 times the price I pay for the average HBO series.Lets not even start on the price of old series like Blakes 7 , which have not dropped in the several years they have been out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That explains the pricing structure on BBC DVDs at the local DVD store.
:(I keep wanting to buy Torchwood and Dr Who, but it costs 4 times the price I pay for the average HBO series.Lets not even start on the price of old series like Blakes 7, which have not dropped in the several years they have been out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861551</id>
	<title>Re:Sweet!</title>
	<author>Phoobarnvaz</author>
	<datestamp>1256397240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Same here. Actually watch more BBC &amp; Channel 10 AU than I do US stuff they call TV. I would gladly pay a subscription for this...rather than use proxy servers to get downloads &amp; watch it as a native in the UK!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same here .
Actually watch more BBC &amp; Channel 10 AU than I do US stuff they call TV .
I would gladly pay a subscription for this...rather than use proxy servers to get downloads &amp; watch it as a native in the UK ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same here.
Actually watch more BBC &amp; Channel 10 AU than I do US stuff they call TV.
I would gladly pay a subscription for this...rather than use proxy servers to get downloads &amp; watch it as a native in the UK!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29868985</id>
	<title>Re:As a British taxpayer...</title>
	<author>LordSnooty</author>
	<datestamp>1256490420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Probably not helpful but I've always been intrigued by the Beeb's approach to torrenting, and the blind eye they tend to turn - to the recently aired stuff anyway, rather than DVD rips. There are a couple of good sites that share a lot of up-to-date BBC content. The BBC have only ever got after the person who shared Dr Who pre-air, the sites themselves are left alone. I wonder if, under this rumoured pay model that will continue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably not helpful but I 've always been intrigued by the Beeb 's approach to torrenting , and the blind eye they tend to turn - to the recently aired stuff anyway , rather than DVD rips .
There are a couple of good sites that share a lot of up-to-date BBC content .
The BBC have only ever got after the person who shared Dr Who pre-air , the sites themselves are left alone .
I wonder if , under this rumoured pay model that will continue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably not helpful but I've always been intrigued by the Beeb's approach to torrenting, and the blind eye they tend to turn - to the recently aired stuff anyway, rather than DVD rips.
There are a couple of good sites that share a lot of up-to-date BBC content.
The BBC have only ever got after the person who shared Dr Who pre-air, the sites themselves are left alone.
I wonder if, under this rumoured pay model that will continue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861611</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860795</id>
	<title>As a British taxpayer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256388360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The more money the BBC can pull in from stuff that my taxes (TV licence, which I don't object to) have already paid for, the better. I realise that the TV licence won't drop in price, nor will I get any money back, but perhaps the money will go on creating more good stuff for me to watch.</p><p>Nah, probably the BBC execs will get big bonuses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The more money the BBC can pull in from stuff that my taxes ( TV licence , which I do n't object to ) have already paid for , the better .
I realise that the TV licence wo n't drop in price , nor will I get any money back , but perhaps the money will go on creating more good stuff for me to watch.Nah , probably the BBC execs will get big bonuses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more money the BBC can pull in from stuff that my taxes (TV licence, which I don't object to) have already paid for, the better.
I realise that the TV licence won't drop in price, nor will I get any money back, but perhaps the money will go on creating more good stuff for me to watch.Nah, probably the BBC execs will get big bonuses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861153</id>
	<title>Re:hugely popular?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256392140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, this should not be modded Troll. Obviously someone from the BBC is here and they have mod points...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , this should not be modded Troll .
Obviously someone from the BBC is here and they have mod points.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, this should not be modded Troll.
Obviously someone from the BBC is here and they have mod points...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861971</id>
	<title>Re:BBC is a weird beastie</title>
	<author>Angostura</author>
	<datestamp>1256401500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Weird beastie it may be, but you make two errors. It is not state-run in any meaningful sense and the state does not collect the money. Wikipedia has a decent summary of the licensing and collection regime <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television\_licensing\_in\_the\_United\_Kingdom" title="wikipedia.org">here</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Weird beastie it may be , but you make two errors .
It is not state-run in any meaningful sense and the state does not collect the money .
Wikipedia has a decent summary of the licensing and collection regime here [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Weird beastie it may be, but you make two errors.
It is not state-run in any meaningful sense and the state does not collect the money.
Wikipedia has a decent summary of the licensing and collection regime here [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861107</id>
	<title>Re:British TV Production</title>
	<author>Rising Ape</author>
	<datestamp>1256391600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember when the Americans made a version of Scrapheap Challenge called Junkyard Wars, and the difference in style was very noticeable and grating - much more loud and obnoxious. But most British TV isn't so good these days - the comedy has been mostly dreadful for the past decade, with Peep Show being an honourable exception.</p><p>The BBC isn't "state run" really, and it *is* a good idea, particularly for news and current affairs, as it has much stronger requirements for balance and fairness than typical American commercial news stations (Fox News anyone?). It isn't just a government mouthpiece, if that's what you were worried about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember when the Americans made a version of Scrapheap Challenge called Junkyard Wars , and the difference in style was very noticeable and grating - much more loud and obnoxious .
But most British TV is n't so good these days - the comedy has been mostly dreadful for the past decade , with Peep Show being an honourable exception.The BBC is n't " state run " really , and it * is * a good idea , particularly for news and current affairs , as it has much stronger requirements for balance and fairness than typical American commercial news stations ( Fox News anyone ? ) .
It is n't just a government mouthpiece , if that 's what you were worried about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember when the Americans made a version of Scrapheap Challenge called Junkyard Wars, and the difference in style was very noticeable and grating - much more loud and obnoxious.
But most British TV isn't so good these days - the comedy has been mostly dreadful for the past decade, with Peep Show being an honourable exception.The BBC isn't "state run" really, and it *is* a good idea, particularly for news and current affairs, as it has much stronger requirements for balance and fairness than typical American commercial news stations (Fox News anyone?).
It isn't just a government mouthpiece, if that's what you were worried about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860945</id>
	<title>Re:hugely popular?</title>
	<author>Jawju</author>
	<datestamp>1256389800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not popular?  It accounts for 5\% of all UK network traffic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iplayer).  Considering the other 95\% is porn, that's still significantly popular.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not popular ?
It accounts for 5 \ % of all UK network traffic ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iplayer ) .
Considering the other 95 \ % is porn , that 's still significantly popular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not popular?
It accounts for 5\% of all UK network traffic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iplayer).
Considering the other 95\% is porn, that's still significantly popular.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29862517</id>
	<title>Re:hugely popular?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256409720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are you talking about?? Everyone I know loves it. Everyone. Including me, a geek. It's a pretty awesome free service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are you talking about ? ?
Everyone I know loves it .
Everyone. Including me , a geek .
It 's a pretty awesome free service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are you talking about??
Everyone I know loves it.
Everyone. Including me, a geek.
It's a pretty awesome free service.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861611</id>
	<title>Re:As a British taxpayer...</title>
	<author>BiggyP</author>
	<datestamp>1256397720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that, Channel 4 make a large quantity of their content available on 4od(nasty flash site but still vaguely usable in linux) for 30 days, or indefinitely for stuff in their backcatalogue, such as the comic strip presents and every episode of peep show, whereas the BBC keeps recently aired content online for 7 whole days and expects you to buy the DVD if you would like to watch anything older... If i miss the first episode of a programme and realise this just after the second episode has aired i then have to go and torrent it before watching ep2 on iplayer. Now i keep an eye out for things and just rip everything remotely interesting with get\_iplayer, resulting in nice mp4s that i can watch later, as in whenever i like, and without suffering the appalling performance of fullscreen flash.</p><p>Another great move by the BBC is to offer drm-free downloads of iplayer content, but guess what, you ordinarily(get\_iplayer can retrieve these, thankfully) need to own an iPhone for them to extend this functionality to you, great, huh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , Channel 4 make a large quantity of their content available on 4od ( nasty flash site but still vaguely usable in linux ) for 30 days , or indefinitely for stuff in their backcatalogue , such as the comic strip presents and every episode of peep show , whereas the BBC keeps recently aired content online for 7 whole days and expects you to buy the DVD if you would like to watch anything older... If i miss the first episode of a programme and realise this just after the second episode has aired i then have to go and torrent it before watching ep2 on iplayer .
Now i keep an eye out for things and just rip everything remotely interesting with get \ _iplayer , resulting in nice mp4s that i can watch later , as in whenever i like , and without suffering the appalling performance of fullscreen flash.Another great move by the BBC is to offer drm-free downloads of iplayer content , but guess what , you ordinarily ( get \ _iplayer can retrieve these , thankfully ) need to own an iPhone for them to extend this functionality to you , great , huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, Channel 4 make a large quantity of their content available on 4od(nasty flash site but still vaguely usable in linux) for 30 days, or indefinitely for stuff in their backcatalogue, such as the comic strip presents and every episode of peep show, whereas the BBC keeps recently aired content online for 7 whole days and expects you to buy the DVD if you would like to watch anything older... If i miss the first episode of a programme and realise this just after the second episode has aired i then have to go and torrent it before watching ep2 on iplayer.
Now i keep an eye out for things and just rip everything remotely interesting with get\_iplayer, resulting in nice mp4s that i can watch later, as in whenever i like, and without suffering the appalling performance of fullscreen flash.Another great move by the BBC is to offer drm-free downloads of iplayer content, but guess what, you ordinarily(get\_iplayer can retrieve these, thankfully) need to own an iPhone for them to extend this functionality to you, great, huh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860893</id>
	<title>The article is unclear...</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1256389260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... it says that they will <p><div class="quote"><p>The international edition of the iPlayer would include host of popular shows from the BBC's array, such as Torchwood, Doctor Who, and Top Gear, along with historical stuffs from the BBC archives</p></div><p>
However it goes on to say</p><p><div class="quote"><p>However, the international iteration of the iPlayer wouldn't show domestic content</p></div><p>
One big difference between BBC and BBC America right now is commercials and their impact on what we see in America.  If the international iPlayer still gives Americans the sliced-up 40-minute shows (as opposed to the 1-hour versions seen in the UK), then they aren't offering anything that isn't already offered in the US on cable (this could be considered "domestic").<br> <br>
Furthermore, those of us who are fans of Top Gear also know that we have missed a lot of episodes and seasons that have been shown; just not in the US.  If we could view it through the iPlayer, that would be a win.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... it says that they will The international edition of the iPlayer would include host of popular shows from the BBC 's array , such as Torchwood , Doctor Who , and Top Gear , along with historical stuffs from the BBC archives However it goes on to sayHowever , the international iteration of the iPlayer would n't show domestic content One big difference between BBC and BBC America right now is commercials and their impact on what we see in America .
If the international iPlayer still gives Americans the sliced-up 40-minute shows ( as opposed to the 1-hour versions seen in the UK ) , then they are n't offering anything that is n't already offered in the US on cable ( this could be considered " domestic " ) .
Furthermore , those of us who are fans of Top Gear also know that we have missed a lot of episodes and seasons that have been shown ; just not in the US .
If we could view it through the iPlayer , that would be a win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... it says that they will The international edition of the iPlayer would include host of popular shows from the BBC's array, such as Torchwood, Doctor Who, and Top Gear, along with historical stuffs from the BBC archives
However it goes on to sayHowever, the international iteration of the iPlayer wouldn't show domestic content
One big difference between BBC and BBC America right now is commercials and their impact on what we see in America.
If the international iPlayer still gives Americans the sliced-up 40-minute shows (as opposed to the 1-hour versions seen in the UK), then they aren't offering anything that isn't already offered in the US on cable (this could be considered "domestic").
Furthermore, those of us who are fans of Top Gear also know that we have missed a lot of episodes and seasons that have been shown; just not in the US.
If we could view it through the iPlayer, that would be a win.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29866553</id>
	<title>Re:$10 per episode?</title>
	<author>h4rm0ny</author>
	<datestamp>1256502780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
What will it take for the US public to get their head around big budget != high quality. Red Dwarf had a tiny budget compared to most US sci-fi series. Was dozens of times better than most of them too. The Children of Earth five part series had a special effects department that consisted primarily of some rubber puppets, a few CGI flame effects and a person with a copy of Audacity to do the alien voices (probably). Result = Very Creepy Miniseries.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What will it take for the US public to get their head around big budget ! = high quality .
Red Dwarf had a tiny budget compared to most US sci-fi series .
Was dozens of times better than most of them too .
The Children of Earth five part series had a special effects department that consisted primarily of some rubber puppets , a few CGI flame effects and a person with a copy of Audacity to do the alien voices ( probably ) .
Result = Very Creepy Miniseries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
What will it take for the US public to get their head around big budget != high quality.
Red Dwarf had a tiny budget compared to most US sci-fi series.
Was dozens of times better than most of them too.
The Children of Earth five part series had a special effects department that consisted primarily of some rubber puppets, a few CGI flame effects and a person with a copy of Audacity to do the alien voices (probably).
Result = Very Creepy Miniseries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860979</id>
	<title>Re:As a British taxpayer...</title>
	<author>funkatron</author>
	<datestamp>1256390160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Be careful. They might start trying to pull money from people that have already paid the "taxes" (there is some piece of semantics that makes the tv license not quite a tax). For instance dvds of bbc shows aren't noticebly cheaper than other channels despite the bbc's funding model. It's possible that they might take this route with online content if charging becomes normal for other channels.</p><p>Also, I do object to the tv license, mostly because of their marketing department. Junkmail is never welcome but theirs often contains borderline threats. They also have a nasty habbit of sending salesmen to people who ask not to be spammed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Be careful .
They might start trying to pull money from people that have already paid the " taxes " ( there is some piece of semantics that makes the tv license not quite a tax ) .
For instance dvds of bbc shows are n't noticebly cheaper than other channels despite the bbc 's funding model .
It 's possible that they might take this route with online content if charging becomes normal for other channels.Also , I do object to the tv license , mostly because of their marketing department .
Junkmail is never welcome but theirs often contains borderline threats .
They also have a nasty habbit of sending salesmen to people who ask not to be spammed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Be careful.
They might start trying to pull money from people that have already paid the "taxes" (there is some piece of semantics that makes the tv license not quite a tax).
For instance dvds of bbc shows aren't noticebly cheaper than other channels despite the bbc's funding model.
It's possible that they might take this route with online content if charging becomes normal for other channels.Also, I do object to the tv license, mostly because of their marketing department.
Junkmail is never welcome but theirs often contains borderline threats.
They also have a nasty habbit of sending salesmen to people who ask not to be spammed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860795</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860969</id>
	<title>Where do I sign?</title>
	<author>spaceyhackerlady</author>
	<datestamp>1256389980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good quality? No ads? Reasonable price? Uncut? Where do I sign?

</p><p>I just can't see the Beeb redistributing imports like the excellent
<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/cinema/features/spiral.shtml" title="bbc.co.uk">Spiral</a> [bbc.co.uk], the English
title for <a href="http://static2.canalplus.fr/engrenages/" title="canalplus.fr">Engrenages</a> [canalplus.fr]. Most of this stuff
ends up on DVD (I bought Spiral on DVD from Australia, complete with
<a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/" title="sbs.com.au">SBS's</a> [sbs.com.au] Aussie subtitles), but not always.

</p><p>...laura</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good quality ?
No ads ?
Reasonable price ?
Uncut ? Where do I sign ?
I just ca n't see the Beeb redistributing imports like the excellent Spiral [ bbc.co.uk ] , the English title for Engrenages [ canalplus.fr ] .
Most of this stuff ends up on DVD ( I bought Spiral on DVD from Australia , complete with SBS 's [ sbs.com.au ] Aussie subtitles ) , but not always .
...laura</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good quality?
No ads?
Reasonable price?
Uncut? Where do I sign?
I just can't see the Beeb redistributing imports like the excellent
Spiral [bbc.co.uk], the English
title for Engrenages [canalplus.fr].
Most of this stuff
ends up on DVD (I bought Spiral on DVD from Australia, complete with
SBS's [sbs.com.au] Aussie subtitles), but not always.
...laura</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863377</id>
	<title>I'd pay for that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256471040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was looking for a good proxy service in the UK to allow me to watch iplayer. Since most of the Beeb's content is lightyears ahead in quality from the drivvel we get in the Netherlands I'd be happy to pay for it. So, hopefully soon, in the meantime if anyone knows a good proxy service in the uk for a tenner or less per month....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was looking for a good proxy service in the UK to allow me to watch iplayer .
Since most of the Beeb 's content is lightyears ahead in quality from the drivvel we get in the Netherlands I 'd be happy to pay for it .
So , hopefully soon , in the meantime if anyone knows a good proxy service in the uk for a tenner or less per month... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was looking for a good proxy service in the UK to allow me to watch iplayer.
Since most of the Beeb's content is lightyears ahead in quality from the drivvel we get in the Netherlands I'd be happy to pay for it.
So, hopefully soon, in the meantime if anyone knows a good proxy service in the uk for a tenner or less per month....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29868477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29895333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29868985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29867429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29862587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29864383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29864283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29862517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29862149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29864377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29867069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29862879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29867803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29865195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29868685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29895497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29866553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29864471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29862457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_24_2055245_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860945
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_2055245.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860587
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861551
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_2055245.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863029
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_2055245.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860915
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_2055245.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863161
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29868477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860959
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29866553
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29868685
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_2055245.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860979
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861129
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861611
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29868985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863699
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_2055245.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29862879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861999
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_2055245.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860655
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_2055245.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861097
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863191
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863537
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29862587
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29867429
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29867069
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861971
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863257
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861351
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29864471
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863683
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29862457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861107
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_2055245.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29867803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29865195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29864383
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_2055245.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860571
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_2055245.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29895333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29864377
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_2055245.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863269
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_24_2055245.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29863305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29862149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29864283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29861153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29862517
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29895497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_24_2055245.29860847
</commentlist>
</conversation>
