<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_02_004227</id>
	<title>Asimov Estate Authorizes New <em>I, Robot</em> Books</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257168000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>daria42 writes <i>"In a move guaranteed to annoy long-term science fiction fans, the estate of legendary science fiction author Isaac Asimov, who passed away in 1992, has <a href="http://www.keepingthedoor.com/2009/10/30/asimov-estate-authorises-i-robot-sequels/">authorized a trilogy of sequels</a> to his beloved <em>I, Robot</em> short story series, to be written by relatively unknown fantasy author Mickey Zucker Reichert. The move is already garnering opposition online. 'Isaac Asimov died forty years after they were first written. If he had wanted to follow them up, he would have. The author's intentions need to be respected here,' writes sci-fi/fantasy book site <em>Keeping the Door</em>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>daria42 writes " In a move guaranteed to annoy long-term science fiction fans , the estate of legendary science fiction author Isaac Asimov , who passed away in 1992 , has authorized a trilogy of sequels to his beloved I , Robot short story series , to be written by relatively unknown fantasy author Mickey Zucker Reichert .
The move is already garnering opposition online .
'Isaac Asimov died forty years after they were first written .
If he had wanted to follow them up , he would have .
The author 's intentions need to be respected here, ' writes sci-fi/fantasy book site Keeping the Door .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>daria42 writes "In a move guaranteed to annoy long-term science fiction fans, the estate of legendary science fiction author Isaac Asimov, who passed away in 1992, has authorized a trilogy of sequels to his beloved I, Robot short story series, to be written by relatively unknown fantasy author Mickey Zucker Reichert.
The move is already garnering opposition online.
'Isaac Asimov died forty years after they were first written.
If he had wanted to follow them up, he would have.
The author's intentions need to be respected here,' writes sci-fi/fantasy book site Keeping the Door.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946242</id>
	<title>It doesn't matter. Compare Sherlock Holmes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257086400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At this point, I'll bet that there have been more Sherlock Holmes stories written by "Holmesians" than were ever written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle himself. And hardly anyone outside of a tiny circle of fandom knows any of them, and none of them have tarnished the reputation of the originals.</p><p>I suspect there are many people reading this who haven't even heard of <em>The Seven-Per-Cent Solution,</em> a 1974 ersatz "Sherlock Holmes" novel. It was a bestseller at the time, was adapted into a movie--and, I'm pretty sure, is well on the way to being forgotten.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At this point , I 'll bet that there have been more Sherlock Holmes stories written by " Holmesians " than were ever written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle himself .
And hardly anyone outside of a tiny circle of fandom knows any of them , and none of them have tarnished the reputation of the originals.I suspect there are many people reading this who have n't even heard of The Seven-Per-Cent Solution , a 1974 ersatz " Sherlock Holmes " novel .
It was a bestseller at the time , was adapted into a movie--and , I 'm pretty sure , is well on the way to being forgotten .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At this point, I'll bet that there have been more Sherlock Holmes stories written by "Holmesians" than were ever written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle himself.
And hardly anyone outside of a tiny circle of fandom knows any of them, and none of them have tarnished the reputation of the originals.I suspect there are many people reading this who haven't even heard of The Seven-Per-Cent Solution, a 1974 ersatz "Sherlock Holmes" novel.
It was a bestseller at the time, was adapted into a movie--and, I'm pretty sure, is well on the way to being forgotten.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946232</id>
	<title>Sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257086340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Asimov's robot stories were pretty groundbreaking when they were written, but are now thoroughly dated. The dude didn't know jack about AI. He's hardly to blame, since the discipline was in its infancy. But why do we need more stories full of hand-waving about "positronic brains" and "laws" that are so vague as to be meaningless?</p><p>I just tried to read the recent additions to Larry Niven's <i>Known Space</i> canon, and I wish I hadn't. Niven and his collaborator (a guy named Lerner, who I suspect did most of the actual writing) try to deal with some of the logic holes in the original stories, but mainly manage to create new ones.</p><p>Meanwhile Fred Astaire is <a href="http://vidbunker.com/dirt\_devil\_fred\_astaire" title="vidbunker.com" rel="nofollow">dancing with a vacuum cleaner</a> [vidbunker.com].</p><p>Hey, I know money makes the world go round. But can we at least spin it with a little dignity?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Asimov 's robot stories were pretty groundbreaking when they were written , but are now thoroughly dated .
The dude did n't know jack about AI .
He 's hardly to blame , since the discipline was in its infancy .
But why do we need more stories full of hand-waving about " positronic brains " and " laws " that are so vague as to be meaningless ? I just tried to read the recent additions to Larry Niven 's Known Space canon , and I wish I had n't .
Niven and his collaborator ( a guy named Lerner , who I suspect did most of the actual writing ) try to deal with some of the logic holes in the original stories , but mainly manage to create new ones.Meanwhile Fred Astaire is dancing with a vacuum cleaner [ vidbunker.com ] .Hey , I know money makes the world go round .
But can we at least spin it with a little dignity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Asimov's robot stories were pretty groundbreaking when they were written, but are now thoroughly dated.
The dude didn't know jack about AI.
He's hardly to blame, since the discipline was in its infancy.
But why do we need more stories full of hand-waving about "positronic brains" and "laws" that are so vague as to be meaningless?I just tried to read the recent additions to Larry Niven's Known Space canon, and I wish I hadn't.
Niven and his collaborator (a guy named Lerner, who I suspect did most of the actual writing) try to deal with some of the logic holes in the original stories, but mainly manage to create new ones.Meanwhile Fred Astaire is dancing with a vacuum cleaner [vidbunker.com].Hey, I know money makes the world go round.
But can we at least spin it with a little dignity?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946590</id>
	<title>Re:Elitism</title>
	<author>hardburn</author>
	<datestamp>1257089580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why couldn't slamming things down as "elitism" have died with the McCain campaign?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why could n't slamming things down as " elitism " have died with the McCain campaign ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why couldn't slamming things down as "elitism" have died with the McCain campaign?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29960270</id>
	<title>Re:Renshai author</title>
	<author>JBaustian</author>
	<datestamp>1257187140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From HER website: "Mickey lives in Iowa with her husband and two of their children, and divides her time between her family, her writing, teaching at the local university, and the assorted livestock which roam her forty-acre farm."</htmltext>
<tokenext>From HER website : " Mickey lives in Iowa with her husband and two of their children , and divides her time between her family , her writing , teaching at the local university , and the assorted livestock which roam her forty-acre farm .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From HER website: "Mickey lives in Iowa with her husband and two of their children, and divides her time between her family, her writing, teaching at the local university, and the assorted livestock which roam her forty-acre farm.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946368</id>
	<title>Don't like them = Don't read them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257087780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't like them, don't read them, and consider them non-canon.</p><p>If you might like it, go to a bookstore (perhaps online) and decide if you want to buy.</p><p>End of discussion. Next.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't like them , do n't read them , and consider them non-canon.If you might like it , go to a bookstore ( perhaps online ) and decide if you want to buy.End of discussion .
Next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't like them, don't read them, and consider them non-canon.If you might like it, go to a bookstore (perhaps online) and decide if you want to buy.End of discussion.
Next.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29951904</id>
	<title>Money Money Money</title>
	<author>tinskip</author>
	<datestamp>1257185340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, goodie!</p><p>Hollywood has probably already lined up a stellar cast for the sequel "Motion Picture Events", including Will Smith, Bruce Willis, Leonardo Di Caprio, and Miley Ray Cyrus.</p><p>Perhaps even a Jonas Brothers soundtrack and some vampires thrown in as well.</p><p>Mmmmmmmmmmm..........Muuuuhhhhhneeeeeeeyyyyyy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , goodie ! Hollywood has probably already lined up a stellar cast for the sequel " Motion Picture Events " , including Will Smith , Bruce Willis , Leonardo Di Caprio , and Miley Ray Cyrus.Perhaps even a Jonas Brothers soundtrack and some vampires thrown in as well.Mmmmmmmmmmm..........Muuuuhhhhhneeeeeeeyyyyyy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, goodie!Hollywood has probably already lined up a stellar cast for the sequel "Motion Picture Events", including Will Smith, Bruce Willis, Leonardo Di Caprio, and Miley Ray Cyrus.Perhaps even a Jonas Brothers soundtrack and some vampires thrown in as well.Mmmmmmmmmmm..........Muuuuhhhhhneeeeeeeyyyyyy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29950332</id>
	<title>He's dead...</title>
	<author>wildtech</author>
	<datestamp>1257178200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since he is dead, he will not care if the series goes on.  His wishes stopped carrying any weight when he stopped breathing.</p><p>The part that irks me is that the rights persist with his heirs.  Too many people are getting by on the success of their ancestors.</p><p>If you are a musician, artist or author and you die, then you are not longer contributing to society.  Your family needs to succeed or fail on their own ability and merits.</p><p>I can see a case for some rights to persist for a short term.  Under the current system those rights are blown out of proportion to their relative contributions to society.  Give the family 2-5 years to capitalize on the death of the rights holder, then put it in the public domain.  Allow their contributions to society to really be a contribution and not a measure of greed.</p><p>As to whether or not a series should be continued against the 'dead' authors wishes, the market will show the viability of the product/work.  If no one buys it then it speaks for itself.  If it is popular, then it reinforces the reality that the original authors are not the only source of good ideas on that theme.</p><p>Some authors actually seem to understand this... They open their 'Story Universes' up to other authors to explore.</p><p>You can disagree if you like... That's what makes this system work... The 'right' to agree or disagree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since he is dead , he will not care if the series goes on .
His wishes stopped carrying any weight when he stopped breathing.The part that irks me is that the rights persist with his heirs .
Too many people are getting by on the success of their ancestors.If you are a musician , artist or author and you die , then you are not longer contributing to society .
Your family needs to succeed or fail on their own ability and merits.I can see a case for some rights to persist for a short term .
Under the current system those rights are blown out of proportion to their relative contributions to society .
Give the family 2-5 years to capitalize on the death of the rights holder , then put it in the public domain .
Allow their contributions to society to really be a contribution and not a measure of greed.As to whether or not a series should be continued against the 'dead ' authors wishes , the market will show the viability of the product/work .
If no one buys it then it speaks for itself .
If it is popular , then it reinforces the reality that the original authors are not the only source of good ideas on that theme.Some authors actually seem to understand this... They open their 'Story Universes ' up to other authors to explore.You can disagree if you like... That 's what makes this system work... The 'right ' to agree or disagree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since he is dead, he will not care if the series goes on.
His wishes stopped carrying any weight when he stopped breathing.The part that irks me is that the rights persist with his heirs.
Too many people are getting by on the success of their ancestors.If you are a musician, artist or author and you die, then you are not longer contributing to society.
Your family needs to succeed or fail on their own ability and merits.I can see a case for some rights to persist for a short term.
Under the current system those rights are blown out of proportion to their relative contributions to society.
Give the family 2-5 years to capitalize on the death of the rights holder, then put it in the public domain.
Allow their contributions to society to really be a contribution and not a measure of greed.As to whether or not a series should be continued against the 'dead' authors wishes, the market will show the viability of the product/work.
If no one buys it then it speaks for itself.
If it is popular, then it reinforces the reality that the original authors are not the only source of good ideas on that theme.Some authors actually seem to understand this... They open their 'Story Universes' up to other authors to explore.You can disagree if you like... That's what makes this system work... The 'right' to agree or disagree.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946090</id>
	<title>I heard that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257085260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He used to beat his wife. Any evidence of that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>He used to beat his wife .
Any evidence of that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He used to beat his wife.
Any evidence of that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946862</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter. Compare Sherlock Holmes.</title>
	<author>unitron</author>
	<datestamp>1257092160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought <i>The Seven-Per-Cent Solution</i>, written by Nicholas Meyer (credited by some with being the chief reason the even numbered Star Trek movies were better), was pretty good.  It was an intelligent look from a different angle at the Holmes universe, and dealt with what nowadays would be the elephant in the room, Holmes's use of cocaine.  Besides, anyone interested in Holmes would likely wonder about the results of putting him and Freud in the same room.</p><p>Most importantly, it wasn't just an attempt to get some more money and some more mileage out of the Holmes franchise by Doyle's descendants and some studio.  At the time of its writing the most recent Holmes-based entertainment was pretty much the old Basil Rathbone movies.  Meyer wasn't trying to surf a wave, he was acting out of a love for the original works.  It was sort of fan fiction, but by a skilled professional.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought The Seven-Per-Cent Solution , written by Nicholas Meyer ( credited by some with being the chief reason the even numbered Star Trek movies were better ) , was pretty good .
It was an intelligent look from a different angle at the Holmes universe , and dealt with what nowadays would be the elephant in the room , Holmes 's use of cocaine .
Besides , anyone interested in Holmes would likely wonder about the results of putting him and Freud in the same room.Most importantly , it was n't just an attempt to get some more money and some more mileage out of the Holmes franchise by Doyle 's descendants and some studio .
At the time of its writing the most recent Holmes-based entertainment was pretty much the old Basil Rathbone movies .
Meyer was n't trying to surf a wave , he was acting out of a love for the original works .
It was sort of fan fiction , but by a skilled professional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought The Seven-Per-Cent Solution, written by Nicholas Meyer (credited by some with being the chief reason the even numbered Star Trek movies were better), was pretty good.
It was an intelligent look from a different angle at the Holmes universe, and dealt with what nowadays would be the elephant in the room, Holmes's use of cocaine.
Besides, anyone interested in Holmes would likely wonder about the results of putting him and Freud in the same room.Most importantly, it wasn't just an attempt to get some more money and some more mileage out of the Holmes franchise by Doyle's descendants and some studio.
At the time of its writing the most recent Holmes-based entertainment was pretty much the old Basil Rathbone movies.
Meyer wasn't trying to surf a wave, he was acting out of a love for the original works.
It was sort of fan fiction, but by a skilled professional.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29948590</id>
	<title>I disagree</title>
	<author>Lord Bitman</author>
	<datestamp>1257158640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He died forty years after they were written. If copyright law were at all sane, there would be no need for "authorization", and there would already be 500 sequels, some of which might be good. A dead guy's intentions regarding old books should not be the concern of anyone other than someone studying literature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He died forty years after they were written .
If copyright law were at all sane , there would be no need for " authorization " , and there would already be 500 sequels , some of which might be good .
A dead guy 's intentions regarding old books should not be the concern of anyone other than someone studying literature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He died forty years after they were written.
If copyright law were at all sane, there would be no need for "authorization", and there would already be 500 sequels, some of which might be good.
A dead guy's intentions regarding old books should not be the concern of anyone other than someone studying literature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946134</id>
	<title>So what...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257085560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you dont like the books, dont f**king read them.<br>If they dont fit into your world of I, Robot books then dont include them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you dont like the books , dont f * * king read them.If they dont fit into your world of I , Robot books then dont include them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you dont like the books, dont f**king read them.If they dont fit into your world of I, Robot books then dont include them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946170</id>
	<title>Oh, whatever</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257085740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The author's intentions need to be respected here.</p></div><p>The author no longer exists, and therefore cannot possibly have intentions.</p><p>That said, this kind of posthumous sequel is almost always a disaster, but that's only a problem for the people who read them. If the idea bugs you at all, rest assured that you are bothered infinitely more than the original author is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The author 's intentions need to be respected here.The author no longer exists , and therefore can not possibly have intentions.That said , this kind of posthumous sequel is almost always a disaster , but that 's only a problem for the people who read them .
If the idea bugs you at all , rest assured that you are bothered infinitely more than the original author is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author's intentions need to be respected here.The author no longer exists, and therefore cannot possibly have intentions.That said, this kind of posthumous sequel is almost always a disaster, but that's only a problem for the people who read them.
If the idea bugs you at all, rest assured that you are bothered infinitely more than the original author is.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946386</id>
	<title>This Was Already Done Back in 1994</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257087900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no idea why this is such a big deal now - this was already done.  Whole book series called "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Emperor-Isaac-Asimovs-Robots-Time/dp/0380765152" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">Isaac Asimov's Robots in Time</a> [amazon.com]".  The series was quite clearly based on (and trying to expand) the stories with Asimov's robots.  Positronic brains, three laws, and all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no idea why this is such a big deal now - this was already done .
Whole book series called " Isaac Asimov 's Robots in Time [ amazon.com ] " .
The series was quite clearly based on ( and trying to expand ) the stories with Asimov 's robots .
Positronic brains , three laws , and all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no idea why this is such a big deal now - this was already done.
Whole book series called "Isaac Asimov's Robots in Time [amazon.com]".
The series was quite clearly based on (and trying to expand) the stories with Asimov's robots.
Positronic brains, three laws, and all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946740</id>
	<title>Human-like robots no longer on the horizon</title>
	<author>dirkdodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1257090840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thinking about what has changed in the intervening 60 years, I don't think a contemporary author can claim to pen an extension that is serious and respectful of the original work.</p><p>20 years ago it wouldn't have surprised me to see anthropomorphic, autonomous robots as an everyday part of life in 20 years. Asimov saw them on the horizon 60 years ago.</p><p>But 20 years later, despite all our advances in technology, I don't even see this on the horizon, much less in another 20 years.</p><p>I think in our optimism we overlooked two important realities:<br>1) Human life is cheap, economically and ethically.<br>2) The full range of human psychology and intelligence is not beneficial to the performance of most human labor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thinking about what has changed in the intervening 60 years , I do n't think a contemporary author can claim to pen an extension that is serious and respectful of the original work.20 years ago it would n't have surprised me to see anthropomorphic , autonomous robots as an everyday part of life in 20 years .
Asimov saw them on the horizon 60 years ago.But 20 years later , despite all our advances in technology , I do n't even see this on the horizon , much less in another 20 years.I think in our optimism we overlooked two important realities : 1 ) Human life is cheap , economically and ethically.2 ) The full range of human psychology and intelligence is not beneficial to the performance of most human labor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thinking about what has changed in the intervening 60 years, I don't think a contemporary author can claim to pen an extension that is serious and respectful of the original work.20 years ago it wouldn't have surprised me to see anthropomorphic, autonomous robots as an everyday part of life in 20 years.
Asimov saw them on the horizon 60 years ago.But 20 years later, despite all our advances in technology, I don't even see this on the horizon, much less in another 20 years.I think in our optimism we overlooked two important realities:1) Human life is cheap, economically and ethically.2) The full range of human psychology and intelligence is not beneficial to the performance of most human labor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29947130</id>
	<title>Re:It is a little late</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1257094980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In the original I Robot stories, the robot's positronic brains were made out of something referred to as Platinum-Iridium sponge. As this is written, Platinum is $1325/troy oz. and Iridium [matthey.com] is $425. Aren't you grateful that real computers are made out of silicon."</p><p>It's worse than that. All those positrons would make the robot brain a small nuclear explosion.</p><p>Overclock THAT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In the original I Robot stories , the robot 's positronic brains were made out of something referred to as Platinum-Iridium sponge .
As this is written , Platinum is $ 1325/troy oz .
and Iridium [ matthey.com ] is $ 425 .
Are n't you grateful that real computers are made out of silicon .
" It 's worse than that .
All those positrons would make the robot brain a small nuclear explosion.Overclock THAT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In the original I Robot stories, the robot's positronic brains were made out of something referred to as Platinum-Iridium sponge.
As this is written, Platinum is $1325/troy oz.
and Iridium [matthey.com] is $425.
Aren't you grateful that real computers are made out of silicon.
"It's worse than that.
All those positrons would make the robot brain a small nuclear explosion.Overclock THAT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946250</id>
	<title>Not big enough, ma!</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1257086520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems that <i> <b>somebody's</b> </i> children feel their private personalized yachts aren't big enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that somebody 's children feel their private personalized yachts are n't big enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that  somebody's  children feel their private personalized yachts aren't big enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29947144</id>
	<title>Re:If it worked for Jordan's family</title>
	<author>nbehary</author>
	<datestamp>1257095100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only difference is the books being released under Jordan's names were done using his notes, and by his wishes. These were books he would have wrote himself.</p><p>Which is why this is so wrong.  Finishing the WoT posthumously was completely Jordon's wish.  He planned for it.  And, this is completely different.  It's like Jordon had finished, then 40 years after he did, 17 years after his death, the estate decided to let someone add on to it.</p><p>I would love to have seen more stories in the WoT universe.  Jordon hinted a while back he may have written some in the future.  However, beyond finishing the "last" book, which so far is being done very well, I really don't want to see other author's touching it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only difference is the books being released under Jordan 's names were done using his notes , and by his wishes .
These were books he would have wrote himself.Which is why this is so wrong .
Finishing the WoT posthumously was completely Jordon 's wish .
He planned for it .
And , this is completely different .
It 's like Jordon had finished , then 40 years after he did , 17 years after his death , the estate decided to let someone add on to it.I would love to have seen more stories in the WoT universe .
Jordon hinted a while back he may have written some in the future .
However , beyond finishing the " last " book , which so far is being done very well , I really do n't want to see other author 's touching it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only difference is the books being released under Jordan's names were done using his notes, and by his wishes.
These were books he would have wrote himself.Which is why this is so wrong.
Finishing the WoT posthumously was completely Jordon's wish.
He planned for it.
And, this is completely different.
It's like Jordon had finished, then 40 years after he did, 17 years after his death, the estate decided to let someone add on to it.I would love to have seen more stories in the WoT universe.
Jordon hinted a while back he may have written some in the future.
However, beyond finishing the "last" book, which so far is being done very well, I really don't want to see other author's touching it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29955756</id>
	<title>Re:Elitism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257159960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"What kind of elitist crap is that?"</p><p>I'm sorry, are you lost?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" What kind of elitist crap is that ?
" I 'm sorry , are you lost ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What kind of elitist crap is that?
"I'm sorry, are you lost?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946166</id>
	<title>Elitism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257085740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>What kind of elitist crap is that?
I love Asimov's books, I have read most of them and they probably helped shape me in a way. I say that if someone wants to have a go at some sequels the go right a head. I don't think that they will be even comparable but I might enjoy them anyway. The worst thing that can happen is that they are not worth reading.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of elitist crap is that ?
I love Asimov 's books , I have read most of them and they probably helped shape me in a way .
I say that if someone wants to have a go at some sequels the go right a head .
I do n't think that they will be even comparable but I might enjoy them anyway .
The worst thing that can happen is that they are not worth reading .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of elitist crap is that?
I love Asimov's books, I have read most of them and they probably helped shape me in a way.
I say that if someone wants to have a go at some sequels the go right a head.
I don't think that they will be even comparable but I might enjoy them anyway.
The worst thing that can happen is that they are not worth reading.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946342</id>
	<title>Of all the people...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257087360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, Reichert? Of all the people to continue Asimov's stuff, I would think he is one the LEAST suited. Reichert's prior work that I've happened to encounter in brief:</p><p>- A generic fantasy series with a dude who likes to climb things and a bunch of fights/spellcasting, which is pretty braindead until the characters journey to modern day Earth at which point the novels somehow become a thousand time more dumb<br>- A generic fantasy series about some swordfighting people.<br>- A silly animal possession story (co-authored)</p><p>Nothing I have ever read of his leads me to believe that he can do justice to Asimov's work; his work is so far away from Asimov's that you couldn't get any farther without exiting the fantasy/sci-fi subgenre altogether. His work is so totally different than Asimov's so as to defy comparison...</p><p>Really, I rather hope that this is someone else who happens to have the exact same unusual name... that way there's a chance this could end in something other than a disasterously bad book.</p><p>It's like those "Isaac Asimov's Robot City..."* pieces of **** books all over again... but probably even worse, with Reichert writing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , Reichert ?
Of all the people to continue Asimov 's stuff , I would think he is one the LEAST suited .
Reichert 's prior work that I 've happened to encounter in brief : - A generic fantasy series with a dude who likes to climb things and a bunch of fights/spellcasting , which is pretty braindead until the characters journey to modern day Earth at which point the novels somehow become a thousand time more dumb- A generic fantasy series about some swordfighting people.- A silly animal possession story ( co-authored ) Nothing I have ever read of his leads me to believe that he can do justice to Asimov 's work ; his work is so far away from Asimov 's that you could n't get any farther without exiting the fantasy/sci-fi subgenre altogether .
His work is so totally different than Asimov 's so as to defy comparison...Really , I rather hope that this is someone else who happens to have the exact same unusual name... that way there 's a chance this could end in something other than a disasterously bad book.It 's like those " Isaac Asimov 's Robot City... " * pieces of * * * * books all over again... but probably even worse , with Reichert writing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, Reichert?
Of all the people to continue Asimov's stuff, I would think he is one the LEAST suited.
Reichert's prior work that I've happened to encounter in brief:- A generic fantasy series with a dude who likes to climb things and a bunch of fights/spellcasting, which is pretty braindead until the characters journey to modern day Earth at which point the novels somehow become a thousand time more dumb- A generic fantasy series about some swordfighting people.- A silly animal possession story (co-authored)Nothing I have ever read of his leads me to believe that he can do justice to Asimov's work; his work is so far away from Asimov's that you couldn't get any farther without exiting the fantasy/sci-fi subgenre altogether.
His work is so totally different than Asimov's so as to defy comparison...Really, I rather hope that this is someone else who happens to have the exact same unusual name... that way there's a chance this could end in something other than a disasterously bad book.It's like those "Isaac Asimov's Robot City..."* pieces of **** books all over again... but probably even worse, with Reichert writing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946156</id>
	<title>Estate has authorized some of these before...</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1257085680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Foundation\_Series#Other\_authors" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia mentions some other work in the Asimoviverse</a> [wikipedia.org]; of course, Bear, Benford and Brin are all decently well-known scifi authors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia mentions some other work in the Asimoviverse [ wikipedia.org ] ; of course , Bear , Benford and Brin are all decently well-known scifi authors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia mentions some other work in the Asimoviverse [wikipedia.org]; of course, Bear, Benford and Brin are all decently well-known scifi authors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946132</id>
	<title>hope for the best</title>
	<author>wherrera</author>
	<datestamp>1257085560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Especially, hope that they are not as spotty in quality as the post Frank Herbert Dune sequels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially , hope that they are not as spotty in quality as the post Frank Herbert Dune sequels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially, hope that they are not as spotty in quality as the post Frank Herbert Dune sequels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946726</id>
	<title>Re:Public Domain</title>
	<author>demonlapin</author>
	<datestamp>1257090720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People may do as they choose, but I think that there's no problem with extending copyright out to 50 years or so - if you require the holder to register every 10 years in order to retain copyright.  That solves the problem of abandonment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People may do as they choose , but I think that there 's no problem with extending copyright out to 50 years or so - if you require the holder to register every 10 years in order to retain copyright .
That solves the problem of abandonment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People may do as they choose, but I think that there's no problem with extending copyright out to 50 years or so - if you require the holder to register every 10 years in order to retain copyright.
That solves the problem of abandonment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946296</id>
	<title>Guess his relatives didn't want to get jobs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257087000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't wait to learn about the negative oneth law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't wait to learn about the negative oneth law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't wait to learn about the negative oneth law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946384</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1257087840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Asimov's robot stories were pretty groundbreaking when they were written, but are now thoroughly dated. The dude didn't know jack about AI. He's hardly to blame, since the discipline was in its infancy.</p></div><p>Uh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it's not like we have androids running around today working in a similar fashion, but with behavior different from what Asimov described.  I'm not sure why you think anything we know about AI applies at all.</p><p>From what we know today, the most likely outcome is that any 'robot' we develop that even vaguely resembles R. Daneel will have 'learned' how to become sentient, as opposed to being programmed.  In that case, 'laws' aren't so abstract and they could very likely work, at least in a layman's sense, like Asimov described.  Modern AI would have little to do with it, this would be an entirely different architecture that probably wouldn't even be programmed in a literal sense.  Actually, in all likelihood, we'd have the same sorts of problems making them safe and reliable to use that Asimov wrote about.  In any event, we're not even close to living in a time where Asimov's robot characters wouldn't be considered science fiction.</p><p>We'll find out at some point in the future.  Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and in 20 years I'll have a robot butler using an x86 processor.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Asimov 's robot stories were pretty groundbreaking when they were written , but are now thoroughly dated .
The dude did n't know jack about AI .
He 's hardly to blame , since the discipline was in its infancy.Uh ... it 's not like we have androids running around today working in a similar fashion , but with behavior different from what Asimov described .
I 'm not sure why you think anything we know about AI applies at all.From what we know today , the most likely outcome is that any 'robot ' we develop that even vaguely resembles R. Daneel will have 'learned ' how to become sentient , as opposed to being programmed .
In that case , 'laws ' are n't so abstract and they could very likely work , at least in a layman 's sense , like Asimov described .
Modern AI would have little to do with it , this would be an entirely different architecture that probably would n't even be programmed in a literal sense .
Actually , in all likelihood , we 'd have the same sorts of problems making them safe and reliable to use that Asimov wrote about .
In any event , we 're not even close to living in a time where Asimov 's robot characters would n't be considered science fiction.We 'll find out at some point in the future .
Who knows , maybe I 'm wrong and in 20 years I 'll have a robot butler using an x86 processor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Asimov's robot stories were pretty groundbreaking when they were written, but are now thoroughly dated.
The dude didn't know jack about AI.
He's hardly to blame, since the discipline was in its infancy.Uh ... it's not like we have androids running around today working in a similar fashion, but with behavior different from what Asimov described.
I'm not sure why you think anything we know about AI applies at all.From what we know today, the most likely outcome is that any 'robot' we develop that even vaguely resembles R. Daneel will have 'learned' how to become sentient, as opposed to being programmed.
In that case, 'laws' aren't so abstract and they could very likely work, at least in a layman's sense, like Asimov described.
Modern AI would have little to do with it, this would be an entirely different architecture that probably wouldn't even be programmed in a literal sense.
Actually, in all likelihood, we'd have the same sorts of problems making them safe and reliable to use that Asimov wrote about.
In any event, we're not even close to living in a time where Asimov's robot characters wouldn't be considered science fiction.We'll find out at some point in the future.
Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and in 20 years I'll have a robot butler using an x86 processor.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946462</id>
	<title>Greed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257088500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sucks most of the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sucks most of the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sucks most of the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946408</id>
	<title>He's dead, Jim</title>
	<author>tverbeek</author>
	<datestamp>1257088080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once upon a time, before the Mickey-Mouse/Sonny-Bono nigh-perpetual copyright laws were passed, 56 years after a book was published <i>anyone</i> was permitted to write sequels to it.  If not for that legislative retconning, <i>I, Robot</i> would be in the public domain (in the US) now, making it part of our cultural heritage and free for anyone to attempt a sequel, just like anyone can write a sequel to <i>Hamlet</i> or <i>The Wizard of Oz</i> or <i>The Odyssey</i> or <i>Huckleberry Finn</i> or <i>Moby-Dick</i>.  Maybe these new books will suck.  Maybe they won't.  But the creator of the original work is no longer, and no one is going to force anyone to read these.  So what's the problem?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once upon a time , before the Mickey-Mouse/Sonny-Bono nigh-perpetual copyright laws were passed , 56 years after a book was published anyone was permitted to write sequels to it .
If not for that legislative retconning , I , Robot would be in the public domain ( in the US ) now , making it part of our cultural heritage and free for anyone to attempt a sequel , just like anyone can write a sequel to Hamlet or The Wizard of Oz or The Odyssey or Huckleberry Finn or Moby-Dick .
Maybe these new books will suck .
Maybe they wo n't .
But the creator of the original work is no longer , and no one is going to force anyone to read these .
So what 's the problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once upon a time, before the Mickey-Mouse/Sonny-Bono nigh-perpetual copyright laws were passed, 56 years after a book was published anyone was permitted to write sequels to it.
If not for that legislative retconning, I, Robot would be in the public domain (in the US) now, making it part of our cultural heritage and free for anyone to attempt a sequel, just like anyone can write a sequel to Hamlet or The Wizard of Oz or The Odyssey or Huckleberry Finn or Moby-Dick.
Maybe these new books will suck.
Maybe they won't.
But the creator of the original work is no longer, and no one is going to force anyone to read these.
So what's the problem?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29948266</id>
	<title>Re:Revisionist Colored Glasses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257152940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>He already authorized the Robot City series while he was alive: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac\_Asimov's\_Robot\_City" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac\_Asimov's\_Robot\_City</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br> <br>
(it has been a while, but I think I enjoyed the first couple of them)
<br> <br>
He didn't mind other people writing on his ideas...</htmltext>
<tokenext>He already authorized the Robot City series while he was alive : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac \ _Asimov 's \ _Robot \ _City [ wikipedia.org ] ( it has been a while , but I think I enjoyed the first couple of them ) He did n't mind other people writing on his ideas.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He already authorized the Robot City series while he was alive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac\_Asimov's\_Robot\_City [wikipedia.org]
 
(it has been a while, but I think I enjoyed the first couple of them)
 
He didn't mind other people writing on his ideas...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946574</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>MeatBag PussRocket</author>
	<datestamp>1257089400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hey, I know money makes the world go round. But can we at least spin it with a little dignity?</p></div><p>No... or at least there has never been a point in human history where that has been the case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , I know money makes the world go round .
But can we at least spin it with a little dignity ? No... or at least there has never been a point in human history where that has been the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, I know money makes the world go round.
But can we at least spin it with a little dignity?No... or at least there has never been a point in human history where that has been the case.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946934</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, whatever</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1257092760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>erm Asimov made his intent quite clear:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What I will be remembered for are the Foundation Trilogy and the Three Laws of Robotics. What I want to be remembered for is no one book, or no dozen books. Any single thing I have written can be paralleled or even surpassed by something someone else has done. However, my total corpus for quantity, quality and variety can be duplicated by no one else. That is what I want to be remembered for.</p> </div><p> <a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isaac\_Asimov" title="wikiquote.org">[1]</a> [wikiquote.org]<br>The more bullshit they put out under I robot, the less and less he is remembered for being a brilliant all round writer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>erm Asimov made his intent quite clear : What I will be remembered for are the Foundation Trilogy and the Three Laws of Robotics .
What I want to be remembered for is no one book , or no dozen books .
Any single thing I have written can be paralleled or even surpassed by something someone else has done .
However , my total corpus for quantity , quality and variety can be duplicated by no one else .
That is what I want to be remembered for .
[ 1 ] [ wikiquote.org ] The more bullshit they put out under I robot , the less and less he is remembered for being a brilliant all round writer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>erm Asimov made his intent quite clear:What I will be remembered for are the Foundation Trilogy and the Three Laws of Robotics.
What I want to be remembered for is no one book, or no dozen books.
Any single thing I have written can be paralleled or even surpassed by something someone else has done.
However, my total corpus for quantity, quality and variety can be duplicated by no one else.
That is what I want to be remembered for.
[1] [wikiquote.org]The more bullshit they put out under I robot, the less and less he is remembered for being a brilliant all round writer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946098</id>
	<title>How about we pay the author not to write them?</title>
	<author>cephalien</author>
	<datestamp>1257085320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably too late for that. Sigh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably too late for that .
Sigh : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably too late for that.
Sigh :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29953998</id>
	<title>I believe this is called...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257195180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...fanfiction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...fanfiction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...fanfiction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29952076</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, whatever</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257186120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Asimov did write about the crushing effect of "The Big Three" on fledgeling science fiction writers. He found that, with shelf space being a limited resource, new authors only received a brief showing while books associated with Heinlein,Clarke and himself were permanently on shelves. To use this to the advantage of new writers, he promoted the idea of books of stories from new writers in the form of "Isaac Asimov Presents". He also created a universe ("Isaac's Universe") so that new writers could use it to get a foothold with the help of being associated with his name. This is not very different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Asimov did write about the crushing effect of " The Big Three " on fledgeling science fiction writers .
He found that , with shelf space being a limited resource , new authors only received a brief showing while books associated with Heinlein,Clarke and himself were permanently on shelves .
To use this to the advantage of new writers , he promoted the idea of books of stories from new writers in the form of " Isaac Asimov Presents " .
He also created a universe ( " Isaac 's Universe " ) so that new writers could use it to get a foothold with the help of being associated with his name .
This is not very different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Asimov did write about the crushing effect of "The Big Three" on fledgeling science fiction writers.
He found that, with shelf space being a limited resource, new authors only received a brief showing while books associated with Heinlein,Clarke and himself were permanently on shelves.
To use this to the advantage of new writers, he promoted the idea of books of stories from new writers in the form of "Isaac Asimov Presents".
He also created a universe ("Isaac's Universe") so that new writers could use it to get a foothold with the help of being associated with his name.
This is not very different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946364</id>
	<title>Nothing wrong with it</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1257087720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One big thing that people should understand is that there is no single canon. Any of us can build our own notion of canon for whatever series we like (e.g. My DrWho canon ends with the last TV series of the 7th doctor and excludes all the novels).</p><p>The existing of fanfiction shouldn't bother us at all, nor should we care about the publisher or the family's wishes, because in the end we control the gates - stories in culture are like that. Can I take the first 12 books in the Wizard of Oz series, say that the rest never happened, and branch off from there in telling new stories to someone? Sure. Someone else might branch off in another way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One big thing that people should understand is that there is no single canon .
Any of us can build our own notion of canon for whatever series we like ( e.g .
My DrWho canon ends with the last TV series of the 7th doctor and excludes all the novels ) .The existing of fanfiction should n't bother us at all , nor should we care about the publisher or the family 's wishes , because in the end we control the gates - stories in culture are like that .
Can I take the first 12 books in the Wizard of Oz series , say that the rest never happened , and branch off from there in telling new stories to someone ?
Sure. Someone else might branch off in another way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One big thing that people should understand is that there is no single canon.
Any of us can build our own notion of canon for whatever series we like (e.g.
My DrWho canon ends with the last TV series of the 7th doctor and excludes all the novels).The existing of fanfiction shouldn't bother us at all, nor should we care about the publisher or the family's wishes, because in the end we control the gates - stories in culture are like that.
Can I take the first 12 books in the Wizard of Oz series, say that the rest never happened, and branch off from there in telling new stories to someone?
Sure. Someone else might branch off in another way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29949124</id>
	<title>Why not?</title>
	<author>jandersen</author>
	<datestamp>1257168120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Asimov created an interesting concept, and he didn't fully explore it - so why shouldn't others write stories in the same universe? I see lots of stories around about orcs and elves, clearly based on Tolkien's universe; most are crap, but some aren't, and I think it is a good thing if people are inspired by an author.</p><p>What I find distasteful is that somebody is supposed to sort of write in the same style as the original author; it just doesn't work, and apart from that, I don't really think Asimov was a greatwriter from a literary point of view. His style seems stiff and awkward to me, where to me, good literature should be a joy read even after decades or centuries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Asimov created an interesting concept , and he did n't fully explore it - so why should n't others write stories in the same universe ?
I see lots of stories around about orcs and elves , clearly based on Tolkien 's universe ; most are crap , but some are n't , and I think it is a good thing if people are inspired by an author.What I find distasteful is that somebody is supposed to sort of write in the same style as the original author ; it just does n't work , and apart from that , I do n't really think Asimov was a greatwriter from a literary point of view .
His style seems stiff and awkward to me , where to me , good literature should be a joy read even after decades or centuries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Asimov created an interesting concept, and he didn't fully explore it - so why shouldn't others write stories in the same universe?
I see lots of stories around about orcs and elves, clearly based on Tolkien's universe; most are crap, but some aren't, and I think it is a good thing if people are inspired by an author.What I find distasteful is that somebody is supposed to sort of write in the same style as the original author; it just doesn't work, and apart from that, I don't really think Asimov was a greatwriter from a literary point of view.
His style seems stiff and awkward to me, where to me, good literature should be a joy read even after decades or centuries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946708</id>
	<title>Revisionist Colored Glasses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257090540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>'Isaac Asimov died forty years after they were first written. If he had wanted to follow them up, he would have.</p></div> </blockquote><p>A few select pieces of timeline:</p><p>\_I, Robot\_, 1950.</p><p>\_Foundation\_, 1951.</p><p>\_Foundation's Edge\_, 1982.</p><p>\_Robots and Empire\_, 1985.</p><p>\_Foundation and Earth\_, 1986.</p><p>Author's death, 1992.</p><p>It seems obvious he felt it entirely possible to follow up with a book 30 years after beginning, and it is certainly true that he didn't feel Robots were finished off as a body of story 35-36 years after beginning (Foundation and Earth is arguably a Robots novel).  If he had lived another 40 years beyond 1986 and not touched the universe, then I think we could have argued about original intentions.  Passing a mere 6 years after the last entries, however, tells us nothing about his true intent, or how it would change after decades of pondering his creations.</p><p>Of course, being revisionist in assessing his intent is a bit clever, isn't it?  Seeing as how many times he revised his own plans, thoughts and plot/ story/ time lines.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Isaac Asimov died forty years after they were first written .
If he had wanted to follow them up , he would have .
A few select pieces of timeline : \ _I , Robot \ _ , 1950. \ _Foundation \ _ , 1951. \ _Foundation 's Edge \ _ , 1982. \ _Robots and Empire \ _ , 1985. \ _Foundation and Earth \ _ , 1986.Author 's death , 1992.It seems obvious he felt it entirely possible to follow up with a book 30 years after beginning , and it is certainly true that he did n't feel Robots were finished off as a body of story 35-36 years after beginning ( Foundation and Earth is arguably a Robots novel ) .
If he had lived another 40 years beyond 1986 and not touched the universe , then I think we could have argued about original intentions .
Passing a mere 6 years after the last entries , however , tells us nothing about his true intent , or how it would change after decades of pondering his creations.Of course , being revisionist in assessing his intent is a bit clever , is n't it ?
Seeing as how many times he revised his own plans , thoughts and plot/ story/ time lines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Isaac Asimov died forty years after they were first written.
If he had wanted to follow them up, he would have.
A few select pieces of timeline:\_I, Robot\_, 1950.\_Foundation\_, 1951.\_Foundation's Edge\_, 1982.\_Robots and Empire\_, 1985.\_Foundation and Earth\_, 1986.Author's death, 1992.It seems obvious he felt it entirely possible to follow up with a book 30 years after beginning, and it is certainly true that he didn't feel Robots were finished off as a body of story 35-36 years after beginning (Foundation and Earth is arguably a Robots novel).
If he had lived another 40 years beyond 1986 and not touched the universe, then I think we could have argued about original intentions.
Passing a mere 6 years after the last entries, however, tells us nothing about his true intent, or how it would change after decades of pondering his creations.Of course, being revisionist in assessing his intent is a bit clever, isn't it?
Seeing as how many times he revised his own plans, thoughts and plot/ story/ time lines.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946424</id>
	<title>New Title</title>
	<author>Crash McBang</author>
	<datestamp>1257088200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, Robot: The Ca$hening</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , Robot : The Ca $ hening</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, Robot: The Ca$hening</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946284</id>
	<title>If it worked for Jordan's family</title>
	<author>nitehawk214</author>
	<datestamp>1257086880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it worked for Jordan's family, why not Asimov's?</p><p>The only difference is the books being released under Jordan's names were done using his notes, and by his wishes. These were books he would have wrote himself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it worked for Jordan 's family , why not Asimov 's ? The only difference is the books being released under Jordan 's names were done using his notes , and by his wishes .
These were books he would have wrote himself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it worked for Jordan's family, why not Asimov's?The only difference is the books being released under Jordan's names were done using his notes, and by his wishes.
These were books he would have wrote himself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946414</id>
	<title>And another thing...</title>
	<author>sharkbiter</author>
	<datestamp>1257088080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'Nuff said. (Don't go Dirk Gently into that night)...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Nuff said .
( Do n't go Dirk Gently into that night ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Nuff said.
(Don't go Dirk Gently into that night)...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29952670</id>
	<title>Call the Park County Police!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257189300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're raping R. Daneel Olivaw!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're raping R. Daneel Olivaw !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're raping R. Daneel Olivaw!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29947922</id>
	<title>First the Dune desaster, now this?</title>
	<author>theolein</author>
	<datestamp>1257103620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a terrible idea. It reminds me strongly of the Dune prequels written by Brian Herbert and company, which are simply terrible. The books have no depth and simplistic plots and less-than-one-dimensional characters. All this has cheapened the legacy of Frank Herbert's original Dune series, which were masterpieces, especially the first two books. Asimov himself mess up badly by overextending the Foundation franchise and his estate will destroy the I, Robot franchise a little bit more than the movie did, which was so bad, it's not funny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a terrible idea .
It reminds me strongly of the Dune prequels written by Brian Herbert and company , which are simply terrible .
The books have no depth and simplistic plots and less-than-one-dimensional characters .
All this has cheapened the legacy of Frank Herbert 's original Dune series , which were masterpieces , especially the first two books .
Asimov himself mess up badly by overextending the Foundation franchise and his estate will destroy the I , Robot franchise a little bit more than the movie did , which was so bad , it 's not funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a terrible idea.
It reminds me strongly of the Dune prequels written by Brian Herbert and company, which are simply terrible.
The books have no depth and simplistic plots and less-than-one-dimensional characters.
All this has cheapened the legacy of Frank Herbert's original Dune series, which were masterpieces, especially the first two books.
Asimov himself mess up badly by overextending the Foundation franchise and his estate will destroy the I, Robot franchise a little bit more than the movie did, which was so bad, it's not funny.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946372</id>
	<title>Fuck it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257087780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We already have that horrible I, Robot movie with that idiot Will Smith. Who cares?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We already have that horrible I , Robot movie with that idiot Will Smith .
Who cares ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already have that horrible I, Robot movie with that idiot Will Smith.
Who cares?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29948008</id>
	<title>So?</title>
	<author>ZipprHead</author>
	<datestamp>1257105060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever read David Brin's Foundation's Triumph?  It was a continuation of the Foundation series, and it was awesome, in fact the whole series I thought was great.</p><p>It is possible this guy might actually do a good job.  Give it a chance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever read David Brin 's Foundation 's Triumph ?
It was a continuation of the Foundation series , and it was awesome , in fact the whole series I thought was great.It is possible this guy might actually do a good job .
Give it a chance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever read David Brin's Foundation's Triumph?
It was a continuation of the Foundation series, and it was awesome, in fact the whole series I thought was great.It is possible this guy might actually do a good job.
Give it a chance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29948484</id>
	<title>Most good SciFi is not about tech.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1257156600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is about the human condition.</p><p>You clearly need to re read "I robot" again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is about the human condition.You clearly need to re read " I robot " again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is about the human condition.You clearly need to re read "I robot" again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946126</id>
	<title>Cry, Robot...</title>
	<author>kclittle</author>
	<datestamp>1257085440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>... this is just \_wrong\_!</htmltext>
<tokenext>... this is just \ _wrong \ _ !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... this is just \_wrong\_!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946634</id>
	<title>40 years without a sequel?</title>
	<author>chrysrobyn</author>
	<datestamp>1257089940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I loved Asimov for the reason I love Lucas.  He can tell a great story.  It's not particularly great writing, not very deep stuff (although there are quite a few good reflections on human nature), but it's an entire universe in a book (or five).</p><p>If you're enough of an Asimov aficionado to get excited about this, I sure hope you're still angry at him for adding to the Foundation "Trilogy", what with the prequel and sequels written long after the Trilogy wrapped up.  Hopefully you're angry with him for writing Foundation and Earth, the last I, Robot novel (not a Foundation book, some assert).  Foundation's Edge certainly didn't follow the same writing style or story telling style of the first three (as written, not chronologically).</p><p>If you love the stories, I bet you'll love the next few.  If you're some pure Asimov fan, you have quite a few inconsistencies built-in already, so maybe you'll love these too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I loved Asimov for the reason I love Lucas .
He can tell a great story .
It 's not particularly great writing , not very deep stuff ( although there are quite a few good reflections on human nature ) , but it 's an entire universe in a book ( or five ) .If you 're enough of an Asimov aficionado to get excited about this , I sure hope you 're still angry at him for adding to the Foundation " Trilogy " , what with the prequel and sequels written long after the Trilogy wrapped up .
Hopefully you 're angry with him for writing Foundation and Earth , the last I , Robot novel ( not a Foundation book , some assert ) .
Foundation 's Edge certainly did n't follow the same writing style or story telling style of the first three ( as written , not chronologically ) .If you love the stories , I bet you 'll love the next few .
If you 're some pure Asimov fan , you have quite a few inconsistencies built-in already , so maybe you 'll love these too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I loved Asimov for the reason I love Lucas.
He can tell a great story.
It's not particularly great writing, not very deep stuff (although there are quite a few good reflections on human nature), but it's an entire universe in a book (or five).If you're enough of an Asimov aficionado to get excited about this, I sure hope you're still angry at him for adding to the Foundation "Trilogy", what with the prequel and sequels written long after the Trilogy wrapped up.
Hopefully you're angry with him for writing Foundation and Earth, the last I, Robot novel (not a Foundation book, some assert).
Foundation's Edge certainly didn't follow the same writing style or story telling style of the first three (as written, not chronologically).If you love the stories, I bet you'll love the next few.
If you're some pure Asimov fan, you have quite a few inconsistencies built-in already, so maybe you'll love these too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29951962</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter. Compare Sherlock Holmes.</title>
	<author>frogzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1257185580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you read "Good Night Mr. Holmes" by Carole Nelson Douglas?  I read it when it came out years ago and really thought it was an excellent spin on the "Scandal in Bohemia" story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you read " Good Night Mr. Holmes " by Carole Nelson Douglas ?
I read it when it came out years ago and really thought it was an excellent spin on the " Scandal in Bohemia " story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you read "Good Night Mr. Holmes" by Carole Nelson Douglas?
I read it when it came out years ago and really thought it was an excellent spin on the "Scandal in Bohemia" story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29952530</id>
	<title>Call the Park County Police!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257188520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're raping R. Danell Olivaw!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're raping R. Danell Olivaw !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're raping R. Danell Olivaw!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946816</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>Beetle B.</author>
	<datestamp>1257091500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Asimov's robot stories were pretty groundbreaking when they were written, but are now thoroughly dated. The dude didn't know jack about AI.</p></div><p>So you're saying that when one writes an SF story, he should write it so that it conforms to technology merely decades in the future?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Asimov 's robot stories were pretty groundbreaking when they were written , but are now thoroughly dated .
The dude did n't know jack about AI.So you 're saying that when one writes an SF story , he should write it so that it conforms to technology merely decades in the future ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Asimov's robot stories were pretty groundbreaking when they were written, but are now thoroughly dated.
The dude didn't know jack about AI.So you're saying that when one writes an SF story, he should write it so that it conforms to technology merely decades in the future?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29956404</id>
	<title>Re:Cry, Robot...</title>
	<author>Time\_Warped</author>
	<datestamp>1257163020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't particularly mind a second author finishing up an almost complete story after an author dies. I
DO mind a writer schlocking together something completely new and selling it under another authors
name. Asimov had his own unique style, anyone else
writing for him will not be able to properly copy it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't particularly mind a second author finishing up an almost complete story after an author dies .
I DO mind a writer schlocking together something completely new and selling it under another authors name .
Asimov had his own unique style , anyone else writing for him will not be able to properly copy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't particularly mind a second author finishing up an almost complete story after an author dies.
I
DO mind a writer schlocking together something completely new and selling it under another authors
name.
Asimov had his own unique style, anyone else
writing for him will not be able to properly copy it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946306</id>
	<title>Copyright protection problems.</title>
	<author>arthurh3535</author>
	<datestamp>1257087060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This wouldn't be a problem if copyrights expired in a relatively 'short' time. 7 or 14 years might be too short, but life plus 50 years is far too long.<br> <br>Yeah, some sequels might be utter crap, but we wouldn't be shocked that someone *else* might want to write or create a story in someone else's universe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This would n't be a problem if copyrights expired in a relatively 'short ' time .
7 or 14 years might be too short , but life plus 50 years is far too long .
Yeah , some sequels might be utter crap , but we would n't be shocked that someone * else * might want to write or create a story in someone else 's universe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This wouldn't be a problem if copyrights expired in a relatively 'short' time.
7 or 14 years might be too short, but life plus 50 years is far too long.
Yeah, some sequels might be utter crap, but we wouldn't be shocked that someone *else* might want to write or create a story in someone else's universe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946568</id>
	<title>but it begs for sequels!</title>
	<author>JeanBaptiste</author>
	<datestamp>1257089400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, Robot<br>You, Robot<br>Him, Robot<br>They, Robot.</p><p>In other languages there's even more conjugations possible!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , RobotYou , RobotHim , RobotThey , Robot.In other languages there 's even more conjugations possible !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, RobotYou, RobotHim, RobotThey, Robot.In other languages there's even more conjugations possible!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29947172</id>
	<title>already Robot spin offs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257095460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that have been tagged with Asimov's name.</p><p>Robots in Time</p><p>Robot City</p><p>nuff said?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that have been tagged with Asimov 's name.Robots in TimeRobot Citynuff said ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that have been tagged with Asimov's name.Robots in TimeRobot Citynuff said?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29947500</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, whatever</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257098760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes, it mainly depends on the reader, I watched starship troopers when it came out, I liked it. I read the book, I liked it too, totally different but hey, for me it was like different experiences with the same brand. But really, it's all in your head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes , it mainly depends on the reader , I watched starship troopers when it came out , I liked it .
I read the book , I liked it too , totally different but hey , for me it was like different experiences with the same brand .
But really , it 's all in your head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes, it mainly depends on the reader, I watched starship troopers when it came out, I liked it.
I read the book, I liked it too, totally different but hey, for me it was like different experiences with the same brand.
But really, it's all in your head.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946292</id>
	<title>Public Domain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257086940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>'Isaac Asimoc died forty years after they were first written. If he had wanted to follow them up, he would have. The author's intentions need to be respected here,'</p></div>
</blockquote><p>The original book should have entered the public domain 14 years after it was published as our original copyright laws demanded.  Anyone should be allowed to create any derivative work they want.  The only problem with the current situation is that someone is getting an exclusive grant to create derivative works.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Isaac Asimoc died forty years after they were first written .
If he had wanted to follow them up , he would have .
The author 's intentions need to be respected here, ' The original book should have entered the public domain 14 years after it was published as our original copyright laws demanded .
Anyone should be allowed to create any derivative work they want .
The only problem with the current situation is that someone is getting an exclusive grant to create derivative works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Isaac Asimoc died forty years after they were first written.
If he had wanted to follow them up, he would have.
The author's intentions need to be respected here,'
The original book should have entered the public domain 14 years after it was published as our original copyright laws demanded.
Anyone should be allowed to create any derivative work they want.
The only problem with the current situation is that someone is getting an exclusive grant to create derivative works.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29948030</id>
	<title>Nontroversy of the year</title>
	<author>dread</author>
	<datestamp>1257105420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh no. Poor dead author and his unknowable intentions.</p><p>Why is this important? Come on. If the books are crap then don't read them. They won't be chasing you<br>home from the store.</p><p>Nontroversy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no .
Poor dead author and his unknowable intentions.Why is this important ?
Come on .
If the books are crap then do n't read them .
They wo n't be chasing youhome from the store.Nontroversy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no.
Poor dead author and his unknowable intentions.Why is this important?
Come on.
If the books are crap then don't read them.
They won't be chasing youhome from the store.Nontroversy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29947478</id>
	<title>Don't publish under his name.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257098520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they are just going to publish more books in the Series then who cares.  Please don't repeat what happened to Heinlein with letters from the grave.  Crap that wouldn't sell on its own should not be published under the author's name.  Pride, respect and dignity are dead.  Its just sad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they are just going to publish more books in the Series then who cares .
Please do n't repeat what happened to Heinlein with letters from the grave .
Crap that would n't sell on its own should not be published under the author 's name .
Pride , respect and dignity are dead .
Its just sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they are just going to publish more books in the Series then who cares.
Please don't repeat what happened to Heinlein with letters from the grave.
Crap that wouldn't sell on its own should not be published under the author's name.
Pride, respect and dignity are dead.
Its just sad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946422</id>
	<title>Is this really anything new? Its not surprising.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257088200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disappointing but hardly surprising.</p><p>Every dead major author has had their works in progress, outlines, and basic premises whored out to hacks to make the buck for the estate.</p><p>Name a genre and it has been done, is being done, and will be done again.  As long as they will be paid money to put the name on a "new" work in some way remotely tied to the author.</p><p>Some handle it with more class and style but it is still pretty sad.  Look out for the NEW Douglas Adams novel in stores soon.  And how did you like the NEW A. A. Milne novel?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disappointing but hardly surprising.Every dead major author has had their works in progress , outlines , and basic premises whored out to hacks to make the buck for the estate.Name a genre and it has been done , is being done , and will be done again .
As long as they will be paid money to put the name on a " new " work in some way remotely tied to the author.Some handle it with more class and style but it is still pretty sad .
Look out for the NEW Douglas Adams novel in stores soon .
And how did you like the NEW A. A. Milne novel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disappointing but hardly surprising.Every dead major author has had their works in progress, outlines, and basic premises whored out to hacks to make the buck for the estate.Name a genre and it has been done, is being done, and will be done again.
As long as they will be paid money to put the name on a "new" work in some way remotely tied to the author.Some handle it with more class and style but it is still pretty sad.
Look out for the NEW Douglas Adams novel in stores soon.
And how did you like the NEW A. A. Milne novel?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946502</id>
	<title>Re:Public Domain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257088800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The original US copyright law allowed for a 14-year renewal, so it didn't "demand" that they enter the public domain after 14 years.  Personally, I think that's too short a time, but that's certainly debatable.  The current situation, where copyrights outlive their creators by decades, serving only to provide income to their descendants or to corporations, clearly does not "promote the progress of science and useful arts" as copyright is supposed to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The original US copyright law allowed for a 14-year renewal , so it did n't " demand " that they enter the public domain after 14 years .
Personally , I think that 's too short a time , but that 's certainly debatable .
The current situation , where copyrights outlive their creators by decades , serving only to provide income to their descendants or to corporations , clearly does not " promote the progress of science and useful arts " as copyright is supposed to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original US copyright law allowed for a 14-year renewal, so it didn't "demand" that they enter the public domain after 14 years.
Personally, I think that's too short a time, but that's certainly debatable.
The current situation, where copyrights outlive their creators by decades, serving only to provide income to their descendants or to corporations, clearly does not "promote the progress of science and useful arts" as copyright is supposed to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946426</id>
	<title>Re:Of all the people...</title>
	<author>biryokumaru</author>
	<datestamp>1257088200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you have an extremely hilarious blog I could read?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you have an extremely hilarious blog I could read ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you have an extremely hilarious blog I could read?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29947874</id>
	<title>Foundation == Al Qaeda in Arabic</title>
	<author>twosat</author>
	<datestamp>1257102780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Foundation series is reportedly incredibly popular in the Arab world, the title is usually translated as "Al Qaeda".  Usually rendered into English as The Base, this also means The Foundation.  A website quote says "Also, the book centers on a small group led by someone who has predicted the downfall of a powerful, yet decadent empire... which, some point out, could seem similar to the idea of religious terrorists vs. the decadent West"</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Foundation series is reportedly incredibly popular in the Arab world , the title is usually translated as " Al Qaeda " .
Usually rendered into English as The Base , this also means The Foundation .
A website quote says " Also , the book centers on a small group led by someone who has predicted the downfall of a powerful , yet decadent empire... which , some point out , could seem similar to the idea of religious terrorists vs. the decadent West "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Foundation series is reportedly incredibly popular in the Arab world, the title is usually translated as "Al Qaeda".
Usually rendered into English as The Base, this also means The Foundation.
A website quote says "Also, the book centers on a small group led by someone who has predicted the downfall of a powerful, yet decadent empire... which, some point out, could seem similar to the idea of religious terrorists vs. the decadent West"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946656</id>
	<title>I've read some things of M.Z. Reichert...</title>
	<author>Odinlake</author>
	<datestamp>1257090060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... namely the "Renshai" stuff which is pretty low-level, unsophisticated fantasy for nerdy teenagers. His time is at least as well spent on this as on anything else. I'm surprised the estate would authorize such a person, aren't there any better choices around? But that said, I think this bashing of sequels is disproportional - they really can't take any value away from the originals unless you let them and though often fairly crappy they are usually less so than very many other worthless works out there. And besides, if you really, honestly, think you're not going to enjoy them then why the hell pick up the books or go to the movies in the first place?</htmltext>
<tokenext>... namely the " Renshai " stuff which is pretty low-level , unsophisticated fantasy for nerdy teenagers .
His time is at least as well spent on this as on anything else .
I 'm surprised the estate would authorize such a person , are n't there any better choices around ?
But that said , I think this bashing of sequels is disproportional - they really ca n't take any value away from the originals unless you let them and though often fairly crappy they are usually less so than very many other worthless works out there .
And besides , if you really , honestly , think you 're not going to enjoy them then why the hell pick up the books or go to the movies in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... namely the "Renshai" stuff which is pretty low-level, unsophisticated fantasy for nerdy teenagers.
His time is at least as well spent on this as on anything else.
I'm surprised the estate would authorize such a person, aren't there any better choices around?
But that said, I think this bashing of sequels is disproportional - they really can't take any value away from the originals unless you let them and though often fairly crappy they are usually less so than very many other worthless works out there.
And besides, if you really, honestly, think you're not going to enjoy them then why the hell pick up the books or go to the movies in the first place?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29947818</id>
	<title>This is disturbing</title>
	<author>KingAlanI</author>
	<datestamp>1257102240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not so much the risk of a hack job (I'm a fan, but not a huge one), but the fact that I mentally rendered this as "iRobot".</p><p>Who knows? They changed from Apple Computer to Apple, could change again to US Robots and Mechanical Men</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not so much the risk of a hack job ( I 'm a fan , but not a huge one ) , but the fact that I mentally rendered this as " iRobot " .Who knows ?
They changed from Apple Computer to Apple , could change again to US Robots and Mechanical Men</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not so much the risk of a hack job (I'm a fan, but not a huge one), but the fact that I mentally rendered this as "iRobot".Who knows?
They changed from Apple Computer to Apple, could change again to US Robots and Mechanical Men</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946814</id>
	<title>It is a little late</title>
	<author>rssrss</author>
	<datestamp>1257091500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To complain about this. Asimov himself had begun the work of integrating the Robot stories with his Foundation/Galactic Empire stories. All kinds of prequels and sequels were written by the master himself and by other authors and this is just more of the same. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation\_series" title="wikipedia.org">Details here</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>Now, here is my question. In the original I Robot stories, the robot's positronic brains were made out of something referred to as Platinum-Iridium sponge. As this is written, <a href="http://www.platinum.matthey.com/#" title="matthey.com">Platinum is $1325/troy oz. and Iridium</a> [matthey.com]<br>is $425. Aren't you grateful that real computers are made out of silicon. Was any adjustment of technology made in the subsequent Robot stories?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To complain about this .
Asimov himself had begun the work of integrating the Robot stories with his Foundation/Galactic Empire stories .
All kinds of prequels and sequels were written by the master himself and by other authors and this is just more of the same .
Details here [ wikipedia.org ] .Now , here is my question .
In the original I Robot stories , the robot 's positronic brains were made out of something referred to as Platinum-Iridium sponge .
As this is written , Platinum is $ 1325/troy oz .
and Iridium [ matthey.com ] is $ 425 .
Are n't you grateful that real computers are made out of silicon .
Was any adjustment of technology made in the subsequent Robot stories ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To complain about this.
Asimov himself had begun the work of integrating the Robot stories with his Foundation/Galactic Empire stories.
All kinds of prequels and sequels were written by the master himself and by other authors and this is just more of the same.
Details here [wikipedia.org].Now, here is my question.
In the original I Robot stories, the robot's positronic brains were made out of something referred to as Platinum-Iridium sponge.
As this is written, Platinum is $1325/troy oz.
and Iridium [matthey.com]is $425.
Aren't you grateful that real computers are made out of silicon.
Was any adjustment of technology made in the subsequent Robot stories?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946350</id>
	<title>What Asimov thought</title>
	<author>pooh666</author>
	<datestamp>1257087540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>was that if he could do anything to help new writers along, he looked at it as fair payback for his own good fortune. He believed in the ideas. This doesn't mean he wouldn't protect his own turf copyright wise, but don't forget the Robot City books which had this exact purpose. He was a good and generous person and so quickly judging this as a money grab isn't fair to his memory.</htmltext>
<tokenext>was that if he could do anything to help new writers along , he looked at it as fair payback for his own good fortune .
He believed in the ideas .
This does n't mean he would n't protect his own turf copyright wise , but do n't forget the Robot City books which had this exact purpose .
He was a good and generous person and so quickly judging this as a money grab is n't fair to his memory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>was that if he could do anything to help new writers along, he looked at it as fair payback for his own good fortune.
He believed in the ideas.
This doesn't mean he wouldn't protect his own turf copyright wise, but don't forget the Robot City books which had this exact purpose.
He was a good and generous person and so quickly judging this as a money grab isn't fair to his memory.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946304</id>
	<title>Why not</title>
	<author>S1ngularity</author>
	<datestamp>1257087060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a copy-left type, once you unleash those characters/themes on the world it's fair game.  But it certainly won't be real Asimov, just think of it as expensive over-hyped fan fic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a copy-left type , once you unleash those characters/themes on the world it 's fair game .
But it certainly wo n't be real Asimov , just think of it as expensive over-hyped fan fic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a copy-left type, once you unleash those characters/themes on the world it's fair game.
But it certainly won't be real Asimov, just think of it as expensive over-hyped fan fic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946926</id>
	<title>Re:Sigh</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1257092700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's precisely because AI has progressed less than Asimov assumed it would that his stories are dated. See my previous post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's precisely because AI has progressed less than Asimov assumed it would that his stories are dated .
See my previous post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's precisely because AI has progressed less than Asimov assumed it would that his stories are dated.
See my previous post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29951818</id>
	<title>copyright after death sucks</title>
	<author>Jaeph</author>
	<datestamp>1257184980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if Virgil had these problems when he continued Homer's stories.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if Virgil had these problems when he continued Homer 's stories .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if Virgil had these problems when he continued Homer's stories.
:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946268</id>
	<title>Renshai author</title>
	<author>Archfeld</author>
	<datestamp>1257086700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mickey Zucker Reichert may seem a relative unknown but his Renshai novels were excellent and get my full read recommendation. This seems to be a good fit. Can it be worse than the big screen adaption (read bastardization) of I, robot ? That was so bad I actually cannot recall more than a few bits from the Will "Fresh Putz" Smith movie. My subconcious seems to have stepped in and protected my concious mind from suffering any further damage by hiding the trauma.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mickey Zucker Reichert may seem a relative unknown but his Renshai novels were excellent and get my full read recommendation .
This seems to be a good fit .
Can it be worse than the big screen adaption ( read bastardization ) of I , robot ?
That was so bad I actually can not recall more than a few bits from the Will " Fresh Putz " Smith movie .
My subconcious seems to have stepped in and protected my concious mind from suffering any further damage by hiding the trauma .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mickey Zucker Reichert may seem a relative unknown but his Renshai novels were excellent and get my full read recommendation.
This seems to be a good fit.
Can it be worse than the big screen adaption (read bastardization) of I, robot ?
That was so bad I actually cannot recall more than a few bits from the Will "Fresh Putz" Smith movie.
My subconcious seems to have stepped in and protected my concious mind from suffering any further damage by hiding the trauma.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946674</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing wrong with it</title>
	<author>iris-n</author>
	<datestamp>1257090180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're missing the point. As long as the estate still controls copyright, there's still a single canon. You can end it wherever you like, but you can't branch it.</p><p>I think Sherlock Holmes is a good example of a public domain character. There aren't any branches that I know of, but there are a lot of books that use it in a way or another. My favourite one is a Brasilian book that does not resemble a holmesian story at all (nor tries to), but uses the character to make a delightful satire of detective stories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're missing the point .
As long as the estate still controls copyright , there 's still a single canon .
You can end it wherever you like , but you ca n't branch it.I think Sherlock Holmes is a good example of a public domain character .
There are n't any branches that I know of , but there are a lot of books that use it in a way or another .
My favourite one is a Brasilian book that does not resemble a holmesian story at all ( nor tries to ) , but uses the character to make a delightful satire of detective stories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're missing the point.
As long as the estate still controls copyright, there's still a single canon.
You can end it wherever you like, but you can't branch it.I think Sherlock Holmes is a good example of a public domain character.
There aren't any branches that I know of, but there are a lot of books that use it in a way or another.
My favourite one is a Brasilian book that does not resemble a holmesian story at all (nor tries to), but uses the character to make a delightful satire of detective stories.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29947652</id>
	<title>Asimov for sale</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257100200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd hope that my family wouldn't sell off my name along with my furniture. I'm sure that Asimov already left a goodly inheritance.</p><p>"Selling" a well known writer's name to someone else is nothing new. Ludlum's family has been doing it for years, and quality hasn't suffered (after writing the same book that many times, anyone would have to be getting good at it.) Living authors do it, with worse results: witness the horrific trashing of Clarke's work by Gentry Lee. The I, Robot movie qualifies as well: it certainly had nothing to do with the books by the same name.</p><p>Maybe it will work out: much as I love most of his stories, Asimov was not that great a fiction writer. Discovering I, Robot and Foundation 40 or so years ago was a glorious experience for me, but it was mostly because of the ideas they contain; Asimov's own sequels were disastrous, to put it mildly, and it's sad to think of all the people who may have been soured on I, Robot by that movie. I hope New Guy manages to write good books that stand on their own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd hope that my family would n't sell off my name along with my furniture .
I 'm sure that Asimov already left a goodly inheritance .
" Selling " a well known writer 's name to someone else is nothing new .
Ludlum 's family has been doing it for years , and quality has n't suffered ( after writing the same book that many times , anyone would have to be getting good at it .
) Living authors do it , with worse results : witness the horrific trashing of Clarke 's work by Gentry Lee .
The I , Robot movie qualifies as well : it certainly had nothing to do with the books by the same name.Maybe it will work out : much as I love most of his stories , Asimov was not that great a fiction writer .
Discovering I , Robot and Foundation 40 or so years ago was a glorious experience for me , but it was mostly because of the ideas they contain ; Asimov 's own sequels were disastrous , to put it mildly , and it 's sad to think of all the people who may have been soured on I , Robot by that movie .
I hope New Guy manages to write good books that stand on their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd hope that my family wouldn't sell off my name along with my furniture.
I'm sure that Asimov already left a goodly inheritance.
"Selling" a well known writer's name to someone else is nothing new.
Ludlum's family has been doing it for years, and quality hasn't suffered (after writing the same book that many times, anyone would have to be getting good at it.
) Living authors do it, with worse results: witness the horrific trashing of Clarke's work by Gentry Lee.
The I, Robot movie qualifies as well: it certainly had nothing to do with the books by the same name.Maybe it will work out: much as I love most of his stories, Asimov was not that great a fiction writer.
Discovering I, Robot and Foundation 40 or so years ago was a glorious experience for me, but it was mostly because of the ideas they contain; Asimov's own sequels were disastrous, to put it mildly, and it's sad to think of all the people who may have been soured on I, Robot by that movie.
I hope New Guy manages to write good books that stand on their own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946592</id>
	<title>Re:Of all the people...</title>
	<author>mcd7756</author>
	<datestamp>1257089580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's always been fascinating to me that most fiction is repeating the same stories (see Joseph Campbell), but that certain writers can make the tale shine in a new way. It's what she can do with these "generic fantasy" stories that makes her either a good or bad author. Whether she can take the "I, Robot" series and make them memorable and entertaining remains to be seen.</p><p>Besides, IMHO, the "I, Robot" stories were to some extent just detective stories, with robots and some interesting speculation about robot "morality", with Asimov exploring how that morality could be circumvented. It is up to the discerning to recognize that he was really talking about human morality...as well as making a living as an author.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's always been fascinating to me that most fiction is repeating the same stories ( see Joseph Campbell ) , but that certain writers can make the tale shine in a new way .
It 's what she can do with these " generic fantasy " stories that makes her either a good or bad author .
Whether she can take the " I , Robot " series and make them memorable and entertaining remains to be seen.Besides , IMHO , the " I , Robot " stories were to some extent just detective stories , with robots and some interesting speculation about robot " morality " , with Asimov exploring how that morality could be circumvented .
It is up to the discerning to recognize that he was really talking about human morality...as well as making a living as an author .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's always been fascinating to me that most fiction is repeating the same stories (see Joseph Campbell), but that certain writers can make the tale shine in a new way.
It's what she can do with these "generic fantasy" stories that makes her either a good or bad author.
Whether she can take the "I, Robot" series and make them memorable and entertaining remains to be seen.Besides, IMHO, the "I, Robot" stories were to some extent just detective stories, with robots and some interesting speculation about robot "morality", with Asimov exploring how that morality could be circumvented.
It is up to the discerning to recognize that he was really talking about human morality...as well as making a living as an author.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946538</id>
	<title>the only thing really troubling about this...</title>
	<author>Ethanol</author>
	<datestamp>1257089100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...is that only the one person is allowed to write sequels.  The first story set in that world was written in 1940; under the copyright terms in effect at the time, it should've been in the public domain in 1996.  There should be lots and lots of derivative works out there competing in the marketplace, instead of only one "authorized" one making the Asimov estate a pile of money that none of them actually earned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is that only the one person is allowed to write sequels .
The first story set in that world was written in 1940 ; under the copyright terms in effect at the time , it should 've been in the public domain in 1996 .
There should be lots and lots of derivative works out there competing in the marketplace , instead of only one " authorized " one making the Asimov estate a pile of money that none of them actually earned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is that only the one person is allowed to write sequels.
The first story set in that world was written in 1940; under the copyright terms in effect at the time, it should've been in the public domain in 1996.
There should be lots and lots of derivative works out there competing in the marketplace, instead of only one "authorized" one making the Asimov estate a pile of money that none of them actually earned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946514</id>
	<title>Would be a disappointment to the Asimov legacy ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257088860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo....  no one would have the<br>depth of Asimovs insight into human behaviour which is really the hallmark of his writing.</p><p>I still consider the foundation series offering the greatest insight into the human psyche.<br>barbarism -&gt; religion -&gt; science -&gt; trade -&gt; consolidation -&gt; rebellion -&gt; barbarism -&gt; religion</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo.... no one would have thedepth of Asimovs insight into human behaviour which is really the hallmark of his writing.I still consider the foundation series offering the greatest insight into the human psyche.barbarism - &gt; religion - &gt; science - &gt; trade - &gt; consolidation - &gt; rebellion - &gt; barbarism - &gt; religion</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo....  no one would have thedepth of Asimovs insight into human behaviour which is really the hallmark of his writing.I still consider the foundation series offering the greatest insight into the human psyche.barbarism -&gt; religion -&gt; science -&gt; trade -&gt; consolidation -&gt; rebellion -&gt; barbarism -&gt; religion</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29948936</id>
	<title>If you disagree, just don't bother reading it</title>
	<author>Vaal</author>
	<datestamp>1257165240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Come on, it's the same thing every time a book (or anything) is adapted into a movie or has sequels or whatever! Everybody is making a scene of it! (I remember giant trolls about P. Jackson's LoTR...)

The *original* books of Asimov won't disappear anyway! The additional fiction won't make it change. The upcoming book might be enjoyable, faithful to Asimov, or not. And what if they don't? Will that change the face of the earth? Will that change the vision of Asimov's work in you heart? Nobody force you to read them, and nobody says "now, that's the official truth, robots are made of cheese and actually work for R. What Ismyname, the super demonic robot from oblivion. Just discard everything you knew about robots"

If you're not happy with what is added to the original work that you enjoy, just ignore it!

Last week I was at the Surrogates movie premiere in Paris, and the two authors of the graphic novel where there to answer questions from the audience. When asked if they were happy about the adaptation, they answered that they did enjoy it (well, that's what they say in public<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P but that's not the matter here) and they said that whatever could happen with the movie, their own work wouldn't be altered, since it follows its own path, it was there before the movie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on , it 's the same thing every time a book ( or anything ) is adapted into a movie or has sequels or whatever !
Everybody is making a scene of it !
( I remember giant trolls about P. Jackson 's LoTR... ) The * original * books of Asimov wo n't disappear anyway !
The additional fiction wo n't make it change .
The upcoming book might be enjoyable , faithful to Asimov , or not .
And what if they do n't ?
Will that change the face of the earth ?
Will that change the vision of Asimov 's work in you heart ?
Nobody force you to read them , and nobody says " now , that 's the official truth , robots are made of cheese and actually work for R. What Ismyname , the super demonic robot from oblivion .
Just discard everything you knew about robots " If you 're not happy with what is added to the original work that you enjoy , just ignore it !
Last week I was at the Surrogates movie premiere in Paris , and the two authors of the graphic novel where there to answer questions from the audience .
When asked if they were happy about the adaptation , they answered that they did enjoy it ( well , that 's what they say in public : P but that 's not the matter here ) and they said that whatever could happen with the movie , their own work would n't be altered , since it follows its own path , it was there before the movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on, it's the same thing every time a book (or anything) is adapted into a movie or has sequels or whatever!
Everybody is making a scene of it!
(I remember giant trolls about P. Jackson's LoTR...)

The *original* books of Asimov won't disappear anyway!
The additional fiction won't make it change.
The upcoming book might be enjoyable, faithful to Asimov, or not.
And what if they don't?
Will that change the face of the earth?
Will that change the vision of Asimov's work in you heart?
Nobody force you to read them, and nobody says "now, that's the official truth, robots are made of cheese and actually work for R. What Ismyname, the super demonic robot from oblivion.
Just discard everything you knew about robots"

If you're not happy with what is added to the original work that you enjoy, just ignore it!
Last week I was at the Surrogates movie premiere in Paris, and the two authors of the graphic novel where there to answer questions from the audience.
When asked if they were happy about the adaptation, they answered that they did enjoy it (well, that's what they say in public :P but that's not the matter here) and they said that whatever could happen with the movie, their own work wouldn't be altered, since it follows its own path, it was there before the movie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29948734</id>
	<title>Re:Copyright protection problems.</title>
	<author>qc\_dk</author>
	<datestamp>1257161760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't care if some new author takes over as long as it is clearly stated. Those who try to pass it off as the original author's should have their brows torn off and sewn on as a moustache. I have once been tricked by:</p><p>
[huge]Original Author[/huge][small]'s[/small]</p><p>Title</p><p>
[tiny]written by: Hack[/tiny]
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care if some new author takes over as long as it is clearly stated .
Those who try to pass it off as the original author 's should have their brows torn off and sewn on as a moustache .
I have once been tricked by : [ huge ] Original Author [ /huge ] [ small ] 's [ /small ] Title [ tiny ] written by : Hack [ /tiny ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care if some new author takes over as long as it is clearly stated.
Those who try to pass it off as the original author's should have their brows torn off and sewn on as a moustache.
I have once been tricked by:
[huge]Original Author[/huge][small]'s[/small]Title
[tiny]written by: Hack[/tiny]
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946762</id>
	<title>This is merely a bold marketing move</title>
	<author>W1sdOm\_tOOth</author>
	<datestamp>1257091020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is merely a bold marketing move to re-use an old success. The new writings might be the best intentions of &ldquo;relatively unknown fantasy author Mickey Zucker Reichert&rdquo;... However, it will always remain an intention, which follows it&rsquo;s teacher&rsquo;s and an inspirer&rsquo;s steps. Once/if these books become bestsellers, I am sure, the same marketing body will claim those as originals and  groundbreaking ideas<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Whatever is swallowed fastest by hungry Sci-Fi readers. After all &ldquo;Everything new is well-forgotten old&rdquo; as an old Russian proverb says... We&rsquo;ll see. I am always looking forward for new good stories... Perhaps, Asimov's ideas are not too quickly being forgotten? On related note, perhaps he hasn&rsquo;t been the first? Are we forgetting someone, or simply waiting for the next story to amuse us?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is merely a bold marketing move to re-use an old success .
The new writings might be the best intentions of    relatively unknown fantasy author Mickey Zucker Reichert    ... However , it will always remain an intention , which follows it    s teacher    s and an inspirer    s steps .
Once/if these books become bestsellers , I am sure , the same marketing body will claim those as originals and groundbreaking ideas ... Whatever is swallowed fastest by hungry Sci-Fi readers .
After all    Everything new is well-forgotten old    as an old Russian proverb says... We    ll see .
I am always looking forward for new good stories... Perhaps , Asimov 's ideas are not too quickly being forgotten ?
On related note , perhaps he hasn    t been the first ?
Are we forgetting someone , or simply waiting for the next story to amuse us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is merely a bold marketing move to re-use an old success.
The new writings might be the best intentions of “relatively unknown fantasy author Mickey Zucker Reichert”... However, it will always remain an intention, which follows it’s teacher’s and an inspirer’s steps.
Once/if these books become bestsellers, I am sure, the same marketing body will claim those as originals and  groundbreaking ideas ... Whatever is swallowed fastest by hungry Sci-Fi readers.
After all “Everything new is well-forgotten old” as an old Russian proverb says... We’ll see.
I am always looking forward for new good stories... Perhaps, Asimov's ideas are not too quickly being forgotten?
On related note, perhaps he hasn’t been the first?
Are we forgetting someone, or simply waiting for the next story to amuse us?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946476</id>
	<title>Re:Elitism</title>
	<author>cronot</author>
	<datestamp>1257088620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea, I think it's a bit elitist too. I mean, if they don't want a sequel, don't read it!</p><p>Case in point, a classic: The Time Machine, from H.G. Wells. A century later, a sequel was authorized and written by Stephen Baxter: The Time Ships. And I like it so much more than the first book, because it expands so much on the idea, concepts and caracter. Granted, there was a lot to expand from given the late 19th century science, and Stephen Baxter is also an excellent SF writer... So the question really is if Mr. Reichert is up to the task, since he's pretty much unkown. But so was Baxter, back when he wrote the The Time Ships. I guess we'll just have to wait and hope that Mr. Reichert does a good job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , I think it 's a bit elitist too .
I mean , if they do n't want a sequel , do n't read it ! Case in point , a classic : The Time Machine , from H.G .
Wells. A century later , a sequel was authorized and written by Stephen Baxter : The Time Ships .
And I like it so much more than the first book , because it expands so much on the idea , concepts and caracter .
Granted , there was a lot to expand from given the late 19th century science , and Stephen Baxter is also an excellent SF writer... So the question really is if Mr. Reichert is up to the task , since he 's pretty much unkown .
But so was Baxter , back when he wrote the The Time Ships .
I guess we 'll just have to wait and hope that Mr. Reichert does a good job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, I think it's a bit elitist too.
I mean, if they don't want a sequel, don't read it!Case in point, a classic: The Time Machine, from H.G.
Wells. A century later, a sequel was authorized and written by Stephen Baxter: The Time Ships.
And I like it so much more than the first book, because it expands so much on the idea, concepts and caracter.
Granted, there was a lot to expand from given the late 19th century science, and Stephen Baxter is also an excellent SF writer... So the question really is if Mr. Reichert is up to the task, since he's pretty much unkown.
But so was Baxter, back when he wrote the The Time Ships.
I guess we'll just have to wait and hope that Mr. Reichert does a good job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946986</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't matter. Compare Sherlock Holmes.</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1257093120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And we shouldn't fail to point out that the author of <i>The Seven-Per-Cent Solution</i> was also a screenwriter for the 2nd, 4th and 6th Star Trek Movies as well as <i>Time After Time</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And we should n't fail to point out that the author of The Seven-Per-Cent Solution was also a screenwriter for the 2nd , 4th and 6th Star Trek Movies as well as Time After Time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And we shouldn't fail to point out that the author of The Seven-Per-Cent Solution was also a screenwriter for the 2nd, 4th and 6th Star Trek Movies as well as Time After Time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29956088</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, whatever</title>
	<author>Guspaz</author>
	<datestamp>1257161340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree, and I'm not sure what everybody is getting so upset about; Roger McBride Allen's "Second Robot" series does more or less the same thing (adds new books to the Robots/Empire/Foundation universe), and I quite enjoyed it. It also explored variations of the laws in an interesting manner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree , and I 'm not sure what everybody is getting so upset about ; Roger McBride Allen 's " Second Robot " series does more or less the same thing ( adds new books to the Robots/Empire/Foundation universe ) , and I quite enjoyed it .
It also explored variations of the laws in an interesting manner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree, and I'm not sure what everybody is getting so upset about; Roger McBride Allen's "Second Robot" series does more or less the same thing (adds new books to the Robots/Empire/Foundation universe), and I quite enjoyed it.
It also explored variations of the laws in an interesting manner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29948418</id>
	<title>Re:It is a little late</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257155220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>my thoughts too - asimov's work all hangs together anyway. People who like the movie should just go and read some more of the books he already wrote. We don't need new 'sequels'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>my thoughts too - asimov 's work all hangs together anyway .
People who like the movie should just go and read some more of the books he already wrote .
We do n't need new 'sequels'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my thoughts too - asimov's work all hangs together anyway.
People who like the movie should just go and read some more of the books he already wrote.
We don't need new 'sequels'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29953748</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, whatever</title>
	<author>Scroatzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1257194100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. Also, many of your favorite television shows have a staff of several writers, who all manage to consistently keep your interest. Why would this situation be objectionable?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Also , many of your favorite television shows have a staff of several writers , who all manage to consistently keep your interest .
Why would this situation be objectionable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Also, many of your favorite television shows have a staff of several writers, who all manage to consistently keep your interest.
Why would this situation be objectionable?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29956634</id>
	<title>I, Robot taught me about Sci Fi</title>
	<author>youngone</author>
	<datestamp>1257164400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I, Robot was probably the first grown-up science fiction I ever read, and gave me a life-long love of the genre. This will feel like a betrayal to me, and I for one will not buy or read them. They won't be as awful as that bloody Will Smith movie of a few years ago. (Someone reassure me). I was so excited when I heard it was coming out, it was almost like the feeling (in 1980) when a new Star Wars movie was released. Instead we got a stupid sub-Terminator action flick. Bah!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I , Robot was probably the first grown-up science fiction I ever read , and gave me a life-long love of the genre .
This will feel like a betrayal to me , and I for one will not buy or read them .
They wo n't be as awful as that bloody Will Smith movie of a few years ago .
( Someone reassure me ) .
I was so excited when I heard it was coming out , it was almost like the feeling ( in 1980 ) when a new Star Wars movie was released .
Instead we got a stupid sub-Terminator action flick .
Bah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, Robot was probably the first grown-up science fiction I ever read, and gave me a life-long love of the genre.
This will feel like a betrayal to me, and I for one will not buy or read them.
They won't be as awful as that bloody Will Smith movie of a few years ago.
(Someone reassure me).
I was so excited when I heard it was coming out, it was almost like the feeling (in 1980) when a new Star Wars movie was released.
Instead we got a stupid sub-Terminator action flick.
Bah!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29951216</id>
	<title>Already happened</title>
	<author>kylemonger</author>
	<datestamp>1257182340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Asimov already let people into his Robots universe, with mixed results.  There's the Robot City series of books.  There's Robots and Aliens.  There's the Inferno trilogy: Caliban, Inferno, and Utopia by Roger MacBride Allen.  So this new author will have lots of company and a standard to measure up to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Asimov already let people into his Robots universe , with mixed results .
There 's the Robot City series of books .
There 's Robots and Aliens .
There 's the Inferno trilogy : Caliban , Inferno , and Utopia by Roger MacBride Allen .
So this new author will have lots of company and a standard to measure up to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Asimov already let people into his Robots universe, with mixed results.
There's the Robot City series of books.
There's Robots and Aliens.
There's the Inferno trilogy: Caliban, Inferno, and Utopia by Roger MacBride Allen.
So this new author will have lots of company and a standard to measure up to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29947460</id>
	<title>Re:Elitism</title>
	<author>Nitewing98</author>
	<datestamp>1257098400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And if the worst comes to pass, and they are not worth reading, that only makes Asimov's star shine a bit brighter.  Either way, it doesn't harm Isaac.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if the worst comes to pass , and they are not worth reading , that only makes Asimov 's star shine a bit brighter .
Either way , it does n't harm Isaac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if the worst comes to pass, and they are not worth reading, that only makes Asimov's star shine a bit brighter.
Either way, it doesn't harm Isaac.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29964198</id>
	<title>I like it</title>
	<author>minstrelmike</author>
	<datestamp>1257267300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I Robot the movie was the only movie I've seen that was better than the book (a collection of short stories).<br>
Asimov was prolific. That is not the same as good. He's the one who gave SF popular stories with cardboard characters.<br>

I look forward to new stories. If they aren't good, they won't besmirch the Robot series much because we still have Asimov's legacy. If they are good, then we get new stories, and maybe even characters we might care about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I Robot the movie was the only movie I 've seen that was better than the book ( a collection of short stories ) .
Asimov was prolific .
That is not the same as good .
He 's the one who gave SF popular stories with cardboard characters .
I look forward to new stories .
If they are n't good , they wo n't besmirch the Robot series much because we still have Asimov 's legacy .
If they are good , then we get new stories , and maybe even characters we might care about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I Robot the movie was the only movie I've seen that was better than the book (a collection of short stories).
Asimov was prolific.
That is not the same as good.
He's the one who gave SF popular stories with cardboard characters.
I look forward to new stories.
If they aren't good, they won't besmirch the Robot series much because we still have Asimov's legacy.
If they are good, then we get new stories, and maybe even characters we might care about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29949394</id>
	<title>You, Robot</title>
	<author>HeX314</author>
	<datestamp>1257171660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, some relatively unknown author is going to write follow-up novels for a series penned 50-some years ago...  "If he had wanted to follow them up, he would have. The author's intentions need to be respected here."  This coming from the same crowd that writes unauthorized fanfiction is quite ironic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , some relatively unknown author is going to write follow-up novels for a series penned 50-some years ago... " If he had wanted to follow them up , he would have .
The author 's intentions need to be respected here .
" This coming from the same crowd that writes unauthorized fanfiction is quite ironic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, some relatively unknown author is going to write follow-up novels for a series penned 50-some years ago...  "If he had wanted to follow them up, he would have.
The author's intentions need to be respected here.
"  This coming from the same crowd that writes unauthorized fanfiction is quite ironic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29947674</id>
	<title>Idle thoughts:</title>
	<author>seebs</author>
	<datestamp>1257100380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read a trilogy of robot novels, authorized by the Asimov estate presumably, by Roger MacBride Allen.  I got the first one figuring any port in a storm, I was bored, etcetera.  I got the other two because I really enjoyed the first one, and I thought they were a thoughtful and well-considered exploration of part of that universe.</p><p>I've read a few of Mickey Zucker Reichert's books.  The Nightfall book (and its sequel) were a little heavy on the Mary Sue for my tastes, but nonetheless had some interesting and/or well-done parts.  She did a pair of "Renshai" trilogies set in a Norse setting which I really enjoyed reading, and which had some very interesting characters and plots.</p><p>She's no Asimov, but:</p><p>* The last time I read a new story set in Asimov's setting, it was rewarding and I enjoyed it.<br>* I have liked Reichert's work in the past.</p><p>In short, I'll probably buy them, and I'll probably enjoy them.  I'm a lot happier with that than I would be with not having the option.  I'd prefer if they opened things up further, but since I can't have this, I'll settle.</p><p>And seriously, quit yer whining.  Mickey Zucker Reichert is a decent author with a track record.  In particular, the key to that Norse series is that she managed to write stories which were convincingly and unmistakably set in an existing setting, and yet, which told new stories and developed characters in interesting ways.  This is not some horrible tragedy.  If they'd picked Stephanie Meyer, yeah, there'd be torches and pitchforks.  But MZR will do fine if there's not too much executive meddling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read a trilogy of robot novels , authorized by the Asimov estate presumably , by Roger MacBride Allen .
I got the first one figuring any port in a storm , I was bored , etcetera .
I got the other two because I really enjoyed the first one , and I thought they were a thoughtful and well-considered exploration of part of that universe.I 've read a few of Mickey Zucker Reichert 's books .
The Nightfall book ( and its sequel ) were a little heavy on the Mary Sue for my tastes , but nonetheless had some interesting and/or well-done parts .
She did a pair of " Renshai " trilogies set in a Norse setting which I really enjoyed reading , and which had some very interesting characters and plots.She 's no Asimov , but : * The last time I read a new story set in Asimov 's setting , it was rewarding and I enjoyed it .
* I have liked Reichert 's work in the past.In short , I 'll probably buy them , and I 'll probably enjoy them .
I 'm a lot happier with that than I would be with not having the option .
I 'd prefer if they opened things up further , but since I ca n't have this , I 'll settle.And seriously , quit yer whining .
Mickey Zucker Reichert is a decent author with a track record .
In particular , the key to that Norse series is that she managed to write stories which were convincingly and unmistakably set in an existing setting , and yet , which told new stories and developed characters in interesting ways .
This is not some horrible tragedy .
If they 'd picked Stephanie Meyer , yeah , there 'd be torches and pitchforks .
But MZR will do fine if there 's not too much executive meddling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read a trilogy of robot novels, authorized by the Asimov estate presumably, by Roger MacBride Allen.
I got the first one figuring any port in a storm, I was bored, etcetera.
I got the other two because I really enjoyed the first one, and I thought they were a thoughtful and well-considered exploration of part of that universe.I've read a few of Mickey Zucker Reichert's books.
The Nightfall book (and its sequel) were a little heavy on the Mary Sue for my tastes, but nonetheless had some interesting and/or well-done parts.
She did a pair of "Renshai" trilogies set in a Norse setting which I really enjoyed reading, and which had some very interesting characters and plots.She's no Asimov, but:* The last time I read a new story set in Asimov's setting, it was rewarding and I enjoyed it.
* I have liked Reichert's work in the past.In short, I'll probably buy them, and I'll probably enjoy them.
I'm a lot happier with that than I would be with not having the option.
I'd prefer if they opened things up further, but since I can't have this, I'll settle.And seriously, quit yer whining.
Mickey Zucker Reichert is a decent author with a track record.
In particular, the key to that Norse series is that she managed to write stories which were convincingly and unmistakably set in an existing setting, and yet, which told new stories and developed characters in interesting ways.
This is not some horrible tragedy.
If they'd picked Stephanie Meyer, yeah, there'd be torches and pitchforks.
But MZR will do fine if there's not too much executive meddling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29947628</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257100020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The new stories will either be good and read, or bad and ignored.  Why is this a problem? </p><p>Asimov didn't leave a clause in his will forbidding the writing of new stories about his stories and he isn't going to be an author on the new ones.  </p><p>His fans need to chill the hell out.  Because the dude is dead and isn't going to be producing any more good stories.  Maybe someone else can. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The new stories will either be good and read , or bad and ignored .
Why is this a problem ?
Asimov did n't leave a clause in his will forbidding the writing of new stories about his stories and he is n't going to be an author on the new ones .
His fans need to chill the hell out .
Because the dude is dead and is n't going to be producing any more good stories .
Maybe someone else can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The new stories will either be good and read, or bad and ignored.
Why is this a problem?
Asimov didn't leave a clause in his will forbidding the writing of new stories about his stories and he isn't going to be an author on the new ones.
His fans need to chill the hell out.
Because the dude is dead and isn't going to be producing any more good stories.
Maybe someone else can. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29947172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29948266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29947130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29956404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29953748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29948734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29955756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29960270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29956088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29952076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29947500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29948418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29947460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29951962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29948484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29947144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_02_004227_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_004227.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_004227.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_004227.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29948484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_004227.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29948418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29947130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_004227.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_004227.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29947628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_004227.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29947922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_004227.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946372
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_004227.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29960270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_004227.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29948734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_004227.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29948266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_004227.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_004227.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29947144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_004227.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_004227.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_004227.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29947674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_004227.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946098
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_004227.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29948008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_004227.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29951962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_004227.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29956088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29952076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29953748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29947500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_004227.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_004227.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29955756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29947460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_004227.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29956404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29947172
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_02_004227.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_02_004227.29946726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
