<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_13_147255</id>
	<title>The Languages of "The Office"</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1258126740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Venkat Rao has followed up his <a href="http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/?t=59">analysis of office dynamics</a> as reflected in <em>The Office</em>, which <a href="//news.slashdot.org/story/09/10/14/0042226/Explaining-Corporate-Culture-Through-The-Office">we discussed last month</a>, with one titled <a href="http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-ii-posturetalk-powertalk-babytalk-and-gametalk/">Posturetalk, Powertalk, Babytalk and Gametalk</a>. <em>The Office</em> is running a little thin of meaty examples to make his points in delineating the ways of PowerTalk &mdash; the language of the Sociopaths &mdash; so Rao reaches out to <em>Goodfellas</em>, <em>Wall Street</em>, <em>The Boiler Room</em>, and <em>Making Jack Falcone</em>. The entire analysis illuminates and is illuminated by a <a href="http://www.ribbonfarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/langsTom.PNG">diagram of the disparate languages</a> that Sociopaths, the Clueless, and Losers speak to each other and among themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Venkat Rao has followed up his analysis of office dynamics as reflected in The Office , which we discussed last month , with one titled Posturetalk , Powertalk , Babytalk and Gametalk .
The Office is running a little thin of meaty examples to make his points in delineating the ways of PowerTalk    the language of the Sociopaths    so Rao reaches out to Goodfellas , Wall Street , The Boiler Room , and Making Jack Falcone .
The entire analysis illuminates and is illuminated by a diagram of the disparate languages that Sociopaths , the Clueless , and Losers speak to each other and among themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Venkat Rao has followed up his analysis of office dynamics as reflected in The Office, which we discussed last month, with one titled Posturetalk, Powertalk, Babytalk and Gametalk.
The Office is running a little thin of meaty examples to make his points in delineating the ways of PowerTalk — the language of the Sociopaths — so Rao reaches out to Goodfellas, Wall Street, The Boiler Room, and Making Jack Falcone.
The entire analysis illuminates and is illuminated by a diagram of the disparate languages that Sociopaths, the Clueless, and Losers speak to each other and among themselves.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088084</id>
	<title>Re:Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>thesandtiger</author>
	<datestamp>1258134060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know, right? It's almost as if he were pretending that the conversations in The Office were like, extreme examples of the things that people do, in fact, run into every day in office situations and then using them as exemplars, and that he also thought maybe more people have seen The Office than would be privy to the goings on at McManus, Kinsey &amp; Schmidt Box &amp; Container Manufacturers. What kind of insanity as this?</p><p>It would have been MUCH better if he used really tame or low-key examples from some office in the middle of Podunk, Iowa that nobody has ever heard of, because that would just work so much better for an article intended for a nation/world-wide audience. EVERYONE knows how Jeanne in Accounts Payable is like <i>this</i> while Frank in Customer Service is like <b>THAT</b>. Cause that stuff is REAL, yo.</p><p>Gotta keep it real.</p><p>Does it also bug you that people study literature or historical accounts which may very well be somewhat fictionalized/idealized portrayals of real events, and attempt to use them to understand human interaction?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know , right ?
It 's almost as if he were pretending that the conversations in The Office were like , extreme examples of the things that people do , in fact , run into every day in office situations and then using them as exemplars , and that he also thought maybe more people have seen The Office than would be privy to the goings on at McManus , Kinsey &amp; Schmidt Box &amp; Container Manufacturers .
What kind of insanity as this ? It would have been MUCH better if he used really tame or low-key examples from some office in the middle of Podunk , Iowa that nobody has ever heard of , because that would just work so much better for an article intended for a nation/world-wide audience .
EVERYONE knows how Jeanne in Accounts Payable is like this while Frank in Customer Service is like THAT .
Cause that stuff is REAL , yo.Got ta keep it real.Does it also bug you that people study literature or historical accounts which may very well be somewhat fictionalized/idealized portrayals of real events , and attempt to use them to understand human interaction ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know, right?
It's almost as if he were pretending that the conversations in The Office were like, extreme examples of the things that people do, in fact, run into every day in office situations and then using them as exemplars, and that he also thought maybe more people have seen The Office than would be privy to the goings on at McManus, Kinsey &amp; Schmidt Box &amp; Container Manufacturers.
What kind of insanity as this?It would have been MUCH better if he used really tame or low-key examples from some office in the middle of Podunk, Iowa that nobody has ever heard of, because that would just work so much better for an article intended for a nation/world-wide audience.
EVERYONE knows how Jeanne in Accounts Payable is like this while Frank in Customer Service is like THAT.
Cause that stuff is REAL, yo.Gotta keep it real.Does it also bug you that people study literature or historical accounts which may very well be somewhat fictionalized/idealized portrayals of real events, and attempt to use them to understand human interaction?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088426</id>
	<title>Re:American version Office, or the real one?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258136040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>American here, watch both:<br>I think Greg's office has better casting, production, and is more relate able to me.  It's a painful hack though when compared to its inspiration.<br>Ricky's office is in some ways better acted and certainly more inspired by a long shot.  But it really suffers from the BBC 'old brown camera syndrome' where everything looks old, dirty, and cheap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>American here , watch both : I think Greg 's office has better casting , production , and is more relate able to me .
It 's a painful hack though when compared to its inspiration.Ricky 's office is in some ways better acted and certainly more inspired by a long shot .
But it really suffers from the BBC 'old brown camera syndrome ' where everything looks old , dirty , and cheap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>American here, watch both:I think Greg's office has better casting, production, and is more relate able to me.
It's a painful hack though when compared to its inspiration.Ricky's office is in some ways better acted and certainly more inspired by a long shot.
But it really suffers from the BBC 'old brown camera syndrome' where everything looks old, dirty, and cheap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087498</id>
	<title>Re:The Office - movie or TV show?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258131240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The movie is Office Space, not the Office.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The movie is Office Space , not the Office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The movie is Office Space, not the Office.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087802</id>
	<title>Re:Hear me out!</title>
	<author>nexxuz</author>
	<datestamp>1258132800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shhhhh..... Big Brother Balmer does not like to hear things like that! *sigh* I guess we'll have to do another ritual sacrificial to set things right again.<br> <br>GET THE NEW INTERN READY GUYS!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shhhhh..... Big Brother Balmer does not like to hear things like that !
* sigh * I guess we 'll have to do another ritual sacrificial to set things right again .
GET THE NEW INTERN READY GUYS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shhhhh..... Big Brother Balmer does not like to hear things like that!
*sigh* I guess we'll have to do another ritual sacrificial to set things right again.
GET THE NEW INTERN READY GUYS!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088190</id>
	<title>Re:not sure I totally agree with what he says</title>
	<author>thesandtiger</author>
	<datestamp>1258134660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing is, there really IS a whole lot of stuff to human interactions. Not quite as absurd as portrayed by that bit of Dune, but it can be psychotically nuanced, especially in situations where people have (internal) goals that are often in conflict (i.e. "tell your boss to fuck off" vs. "I need to keep this job" vs. "I don't want to be hassled" vs. "I don't want to be a doormat" vs. "I don't want my co-workers to think I'm unstable/unreliable" vs. "I don't want them to think I'm a pushover, either" etc.)</p><p>Most of the time, these levels don't matter much - it isn't like we're diplomats handling intricate protocol, the proper execution &amp; understanding of which keeps the fate of nations in the balance. If you fail to ask a sighing, moping acquaintance what "nothing" means, the worst that will happen is your sighing, moping acquaintance will mope off to someone else to fish for sympathy, you know?</p><p>In the article, it felt like he was using extreme exemplars to really highlight the ideas he was talking about. It's often easier to use really SUPER over the top examples than it is to use more subtle ones, when talking about interactions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , there really IS a whole lot of stuff to human interactions .
Not quite as absurd as portrayed by that bit of Dune , but it can be psychotically nuanced , especially in situations where people have ( internal ) goals that are often in conflict ( i.e .
" tell your boss to fuck off " vs. " I need to keep this job " vs. " I do n't want to be hassled " vs. " I do n't want to be a doormat " vs. " I do n't want my co-workers to think I 'm unstable/unreliable " vs. " I do n't want them to think I 'm a pushover , either " etc .
) Most of the time , these levels do n't matter much - it is n't like we 're diplomats handling intricate protocol , the proper execution &amp; understanding of which keeps the fate of nations in the balance .
If you fail to ask a sighing , moping acquaintance what " nothing " means , the worst that will happen is your sighing , moping acquaintance will mope off to someone else to fish for sympathy , you know ? In the article , it felt like he was using extreme exemplars to really highlight the ideas he was talking about .
It 's often easier to use really SUPER over the top examples than it is to use more subtle ones , when talking about interactions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, there really IS a whole lot of stuff to human interactions.
Not quite as absurd as portrayed by that bit of Dune, but it can be psychotically nuanced, especially in situations where people have (internal) goals that are often in conflict (i.e.
"tell your boss to fuck off" vs. "I need to keep this job" vs. "I don't want to be hassled" vs. "I don't want to be a doormat" vs. "I don't want my co-workers to think I'm unstable/unreliable" vs. "I don't want them to think I'm a pushover, either" etc.
)Most of the time, these levels don't matter much - it isn't like we're diplomats handling intricate protocol, the proper execution &amp; understanding of which keeps the fate of nations in the balance.
If you fail to ask a sighing, moping acquaintance what "nothing" means, the worst that will happen is your sighing, moping acquaintance will mope off to someone else to fish for sympathy, you know?In the article, it felt like he was using extreme exemplars to really highlight the ideas he was talking about.
It's often easier to use really SUPER over the top examples than it is to use more subtle ones, when talking about interactions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088312</id>
	<title>Cache and comments</title>
	<author>meustrus</author>
	<datestamp>1258135260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article seems to be inaccessible, so <a href="http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:2t45uC9QHdUJ:www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-ii-posturetalk-powertalk-babytalk-and-gametalk/+http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/11/11/the-gervais-principle-ii-posturetalk-powertalk-babytalk-and-gametalk/&amp;hl=en&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;gl=us&amp;strip=1" title="74.125.95.132" rel="nofollow">here's a link to the Google Cache (text-only version)</a> [74.125.95.132] <br>
<br>
My response to what people have said here so far (and I haven't read any of the article yet) is that this is not social theory, it's business theory. It's not supposed to define how you relate to people or how you perceive them. It's intended as an analysis of business dynamics, which is to say it's about how workers in different positions respond to their position and the position of those around them. From what I remember about the earlier article, I would say that even just among the "Losers," their goal is to focus energy into other parts of their lives, parts that have nothing to do with business or their job. When the characters leave the office, this entire analysis falls apart, and this does not invalidate the analysis because it's not intended to reflect each person's entire life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article seems to be inaccessible , so here 's a link to the Google Cache ( text-only version ) [ 74.125.95.132 ] My response to what people have said here so far ( and I have n't read any of the article yet ) is that this is not social theory , it 's business theory .
It 's not supposed to define how you relate to people or how you perceive them .
It 's intended as an analysis of business dynamics , which is to say it 's about how workers in different positions respond to their position and the position of those around them .
From what I remember about the earlier article , I would say that even just among the " Losers , " their goal is to focus energy into other parts of their lives , parts that have nothing to do with business or their job .
When the characters leave the office , this entire analysis falls apart , and this does not invalidate the analysis because it 's not intended to reflect each person 's entire life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article seems to be inaccessible, so here's a link to the Google Cache (text-only version) [74.125.95.132] 

My response to what people have said here so far (and I haven't read any of the article yet) is that this is not social theory, it's business theory.
It's not supposed to define how you relate to people or how you perceive them.
It's intended as an analysis of business dynamics, which is to say it's about how workers in different positions respond to their position and the position of those around them.
From what I remember about the earlier article, I would say that even just among the "Losers," their goal is to focus energy into other parts of their lives, parts that have nothing to do with business or their job.
When the characters leave the office, this entire analysis falls apart, and this does not invalidate the analysis because it's not intended to reflect each person's entire life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088210</id>
	<title>Re:not sure I totally agree with what he says</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258134720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The coworker has integrated non-lexical elements into the language and you have not.</p><p>Imagine if you were talking to a computer program that took each of your words and interpreted each word according to the first definition that appears in the dictionary for that word.  So, you tell the program, "I feel well," and the program interprets "well" as a well that you fetch water from.  The program understands you lexically, but not contextually.  The program is using a subset of the language that you are using.  For the program, "fishing" would be analyzing the context of the conversation to determine the meaning of each word.</p><p>Now, you are to your coworker as the program was to you.  In the reply to your question, "Nothing" means the opposite of nothing, which is indicated by gestures or inflection.  You are using a subset of the coworker's language that does not include these nonverbal elements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The coworker has integrated non-lexical elements into the language and you have not.Imagine if you were talking to a computer program that took each of your words and interpreted each word according to the first definition that appears in the dictionary for that word .
So , you tell the program , " I feel well , " and the program interprets " well " as a well that you fetch water from .
The program understands you lexically , but not contextually .
The program is using a subset of the language that you are using .
For the program , " fishing " would be analyzing the context of the conversation to determine the meaning of each word.Now , you are to your coworker as the program was to you .
In the reply to your question , " Nothing " means the opposite of nothing , which is indicated by gestures or inflection .
You are using a subset of the coworker 's language that does not include these nonverbal elements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The coworker has integrated non-lexical elements into the language and you have not.Imagine if you were talking to a computer program that took each of your words and interpreted each word according to the first definition that appears in the dictionary for that word.
So, you tell the program, "I feel well," and the program interprets "well" as a well that you fetch water from.
The program understands you lexically, but not contextually.
The program is using a subset of the language that you are using.
For the program, "fishing" would be analyzing the context of the conversation to determine the meaning of each word.Now, you are to your coworker as the program was to you.
In the reply to your question, "Nothing" means the opposite of nothing, which is indicated by gestures or inflection.
You are using a subset of the coworker's language that does not include these nonverbal elements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088762</id>
	<title>Re:i hope everyone realizes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258137300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>2nd response:  the reason there's nothing you can do about it.</p><p>The skills it takes to be a sociopath, be clueless, be a loser (and I think the original author must be a sociopath for choosing these labels) in the workplace are so mutually exclusive that one can't possibly be good at all three.</p><p>The sociopath is the ultimate salesman- his aim is to get the most reward for the least effort. I disagree with the author that he's the guy making the organization work despite itself- he's more a parasite on everybody else's work.  But like all good parasites, he's always looking for an opportunity.</p><p>The clueless is the most honorable person in the office- they'll give you the shirt off their back, and they're on 100\% of the time.  Too bad they're usually on a task set by a sociopath or worse yet, doing something they don't understand.</p><p>The loser is the guy who can't make a good deal to save his life, and he knows it.  Because of that, he does the minimum necessary- but he does do the necessary.  He's the guy with technical skills who keeps your computer running, the guy with plumbing skills who keeps the water flowing in the bathroom.  If he was paid what he was truly worth to the company, there would be no profit left for the shareholders, so they hire sociopaths instead to make sure he isn't paid too much.</p><p>Yes, all three of these are aspects of everybody's personality- but the skills to maintain them in the workforce are vastly different.  So different that the further away you get from college, the more you'll be pigeonholed by others into one of these three categories.  And there's not a damned thing you can do about it, because your talents are what they are and you can't change them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>2nd response : the reason there 's nothing you can do about it.The skills it takes to be a sociopath , be clueless , be a loser ( and I think the original author must be a sociopath for choosing these labels ) in the workplace are so mutually exclusive that one ca n't possibly be good at all three.The sociopath is the ultimate salesman- his aim is to get the most reward for the least effort .
I disagree with the author that he 's the guy making the organization work despite itself- he 's more a parasite on everybody else 's work .
But like all good parasites , he 's always looking for an opportunity.The clueless is the most honorable person in the office- they 'll give you the shirt off their back , and they 're on 100 \ % of the time .
Too bad they 're usually on a task set by a sociopath or worse yet , doing something they do n't understand.The loser is the guy who ca n't make a good deal to save his life , and he knows it .
Because of that , he does the minimum necessary- but he does do the necessary .
He 's the guy with technical skills who keeps your computer running , the guy with plumbing skills who keeps the water flowing in the bathroom .
If he was paid what he was truly worth to the company , there would be no profit left for the shareholders , so they hire sociopaths instead to make sure he is n't paid too much.Yes , all three of these are aspects of everybody 's personality- but the skills to maintain them in the workforce are vastly different .
So different that the further away you get from college , the more you 'll be pigeonholed by others into one of these three categories .
And there 's not a damned thing you can do about it , because your talents are what they are and you ca n't change them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2nd response:  the reason there's nothing you can do about it.The skills it takes to be a sociopath, be clueless, be a loser (and I think the original author must be a sociopath for choosing these labels) in the workplace are so mutually exclusive that one can't possibly be good at all three.The sociopath is the ultimate salesman- his aim is to get the most reward for the least effort.
I disagree with the author that he's the guy making the organization work despite itself- he's more a parasite on everybody else's work.
But like all good parasites, he's always looking for an opportunity.The clueless is the most honorable person in the office- they'll give you the shirt off their back, and they're on 100\% of the time.
Too bad they're usually on a task set by a sociopath or worse yet, doing something they don't understand.The loser is the guy who can't make a good deal to save his life, and he knows it.
Because of that, he does the minimum necessary- but he does do the necessary.
He's the guy with technical skills who keeps your computer running, the guy with plumbing skills who keeps the water flowing in the bathroom.
If he was paid what he was truly worth to the company, there would be no profit left for the shareholders, so they hire sociopaths instead to make sure he isn't paid too much.Yes, all three of these are aspects of everybody's personality- but the skills to maintain them in the workforce are vastly different.
So different that the further away you get from college, the more you'll be pigeonholed by others into one of these three categories.
And there's not a damned thing you can do about it, because your talents are what they are and you can't change them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30091214</id>
	<title>Re:Writers never worked in a real office</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1258103880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The Office and other Workplace fiction are written by people who have never worked in a real world workplace, or if they have it was merely as a stopping point for them.</i> </p><p>The studio is real world.</p><p>The Pixar feature will have a budget of $180 million. It will be four years in production and employ 400 people. That is as real as it gets.</p><p>Writers often work in teams.</p><p>Ideally every story problem - every legal and technical and budgetary problem - will be solved before you go into production.</p><p>It doesn't always work out that way.</p><p>Production credits are important in this business.  They define the market value of your work. Your right to residuals.</p><p>If you are as touchy and driven as Harlan Ellison you will be spending much of your professional life in court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Office and other Workplace fiction are written by people who have never worked in a real world workplace , or if they have it was merely as a stopping point for them .
The studio is real world.The Pixar feature will have a budget of $ 180 million .
It will be four years in production and employ 400 people .
That is as real as it gets.Writers often work in teams.Ideally every story problem - every legal and technical and budgetary problem - will be solved before you go into production.It does n't always work out that way.Production credits are important in this business .
They define the market value of your work .
Your right to residuals.If you are as touchy and driven as Harlan Ellison you will be spending much of your professional life in court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Office and other Workplace fiction are written by people who have never worked in a real world workplace, or if they have it was merely as a stopping point for them.
The studio is real world.The Pixar feature will have a budget of $180 million.
It will be four years in production and employ 400 people.
That is as real as it gets.Writers often work in teams.Ideally every story problem - every legal and technical and budgetary problem - will be solved before you go into production.It doesn't always work out that way.Production credits are important in this business.
They define the market value of your work.
Your right to residuals.If you are as touchy and driven as Harlan Ellison you will be spending much of your professional life in court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087414</id>
	<title>Down with capitalist barbarity!</title>
	<author>For a Free Internet</author>
	<datestamp>1258130880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For international socialist revolution! Workers to power!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For international socialist revolution !
Workers to power !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For international socialist revolution!
Workers to power!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087578</id>
	<title>Re:The Office - movie or TV show?</title>
	<author>JerkBoB</author>
	<datestamp>1258131600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The movie is "Office Space", you retard.</p><p>(yeah, Powertalk!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The movie is " Office Space " , you retard .
( yeah , Powertalk !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The movie is "Office Space", you retard.
(yeah, Powertalk!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088508</id>
	<title>Re:American version Office, or the real one?</title>
	<author>Kryis</author>
	<datestamp>1258136400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It only "lasted" 2 seasons because the writers felt they would just be redoing the same thing over again if they did any more, instead of milking it for another 20 seasons until everyone got fed up with it. Instead of running the series in to the ground, they stopped while the idea was still funny.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It only " lasted " 2 seasons because the writers felt they would just be redoing the same thing over again if they did any more , instead of milking it for another 20 seasons until everyone got fed up with it .
Instead of running the series in to the ground , they stopped while the idea was still funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It only "lasted" 2 seasons because the writers felt they would just be redoing the same thing over again if they did any more, instead of milking it for another 20 seasons until everyone got fed up with it.
Instead of running the series in to the ground, they stopped while the idea was still funny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087836</id>
	<title>Re:American version Office, or the real one?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258132920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Seriously, if you're going to post this drivel, at least acknowledge the superiority of Ricky Gervais' version. I'm an American, and even I resent it when people assume that "The Office" is synonymous with the Greg Daniels version.</i> <br>
<br>
Too true. NBC can screw anything up. I'm also always reminded of NBC's version of "Coupling". NBC had a hit show with "Friends" (I didn't particularly like it, but you have to admit it was hugely popular). The BBC looks at it, says "Let's make a knockoff" and they make "Coupling". NBC sees "Coupling" and says "What a great idea". They <b>buy</b> (!) the rights to make an American version of "Coupling" (which, remember, was a rip-off of their own show) and make a pile of what everyone everywhere agrees is absolute shit. So basically, NBC can't even rip themselves off without screwing it up somehow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , if you 're going to post this drivel , at least acknowledge the superiority of Ricky Gervais ' version .
I 'm an American , and even I resent it when people assume that " The Office " is synonymous with the Greg Daniels version .
Too true .
NBC can screw anything up .
I 'm also always reminded of NBC 's version of " Coupling " .
NBC had a hit show with " Friends " ( I did n't particularly like it , but you have to admit it was hugely popular ) .
The BBC looks at it , says " Let 's make a knockoff " and they make " Coupling " .
NBC sees " Coupling " and says " What a great idea " .
They buy ( !
) the rights to make an American version of " Coupling " ( which , remember , was a rip-off of their own show ) and make a pile of what everyone everywhere agrees is absolute shit .
So basically , NBC ca n't even rip themselves off without screwing it up somehow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, if you're going to post this drivel, at least acknowledge the superiority of Ricky Gervais' version.
I'm an American, and even I resent it when people assume that "The Office" is synonymous with the Greg Daniels version.
Too true.
NBC can screw anything up.
I'm also always reminded of NBC's version of "Coupling".
NBC had a hit show with "Friends" (I didn't particularly like it, but you have to admit it was hugely popular).
The BBC looks at it, says "Let's make a knockoff" and they make "Coupling".
NBC sees "Coupling" and says "What a great idea".
They buy (!
) the rights to make an American version of "Coupling" (which, remember, was a rip-off of their own show) and make a pile of what everyone everywhere agrees is absolute shit.
So basically, NBC can't even rip themselves off without screwing it up somehow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30093096</id>
	<title>God, that diagram is ugly!</title>
	<author>AlgorithMan</author>
	<datestamp>1258114620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ever heared of LaTeX + Gastex + Jastex?</htmltext>
<tokenext>ever heared of LaTeX + Gastex + Jastex ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ever heared of LaTeX + Gastex + Jastex?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30092808</id>
	<title>Re:Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>nametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1258112700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's using the US version.</p><p>The US version used to fit US businesses pretty closely.  It had the same effect you describe... we all thought of someone we'd worked for.</p><p>Then the show got wildly over the top and all the characters became overblown versions of their quirky selves.  It no-longer resembles reality.</p><p>Someone wrote an article on this with an excellent breakdown of how ridiculous it's gotten, but I forget where it was.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's using the US version.The US version used to fit US businesses pretty closely .
It had the same effect you describe... we all thought of someone we 'd worked for.Then the show got wildly over the top and all the characters became overblown versions of their quirky selves .
It no-longer resembles reality.Someone wrote an article on this with an excellent breakdown of how ridiculous it 's gotten , but I forget where it was .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's using the US version.The US version used to fit US businesses pretty closely.
It had the same effect you describe... we all thought of someone we'd worked for.Then the show got wildly over the top and all the characters became overblown versions of their quirky selves.
It no-longer resembles reality.Someone wrote an article on this with an excellent breakdown of how ridiculous it's gotten, but I forget where it was.
:(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30094798</id>
	<title>Re:i hope everyone realizes</title>
	<author>rastoboy29</author>
	<datestamp>1258130400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>You've got a point, but on the other hand I think you've never gotten to know a sociopath well.&nbsp; I've know two very well, and I can assure you--no empathy.&nbsp; Just ain't there.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've got a point , but on the other hand I think you 've never gotten to know a sociopath well.   I 've know two very well , and I can assure you--no empathy.   Just ai n't there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've got a point, but on the other hand I think you've never gotten to know a sociopath well.  I've know two very well, and I can assure you--no empathy.  Just ain't there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087520</id>
	<title>Re:Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>bigstrat2003</author>
	<datestamp>1258131360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah. The original article was profound bullshit, and I imagine this one is too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
The original article was profound bullshit , and I imagine this one is too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
The original article was profound bullshit, and I imagine this one is too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087916</id>
	<title>Writers never worked in a real office</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258133400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Office and other Workplace fiction are written by people who have never worked in a real world workplace, or if they have it was merely as a stopping point for them.</p><p>Thus they don't know a thing about it...but...they're creating an entertaining fiction. To acurately reproduce workplace interaction would be very boring TV. So they're doing what they need to do...but there's no reason to try and interpret that dialogue as if it were real.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Office and other Workplace fiction are written by people who have never worked in a real world workplace , or if they have it was merely as a stopping point for them.Thus they do n't know a thing about it...but...they 're creating an entertaining fiction .
To acurately reproduce workplace interaction would be very boring TV .
So they 're doing what they need to do...but there 's no reason to try and interpret that dialogue as if it were real .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Office and other Workplace fiction are written by people who have never worked in a real world workplace, or if they have it was merely as a stopping point for them.Thus they don't know a thing about it...but...they're creating an entertaining fiction.
To acurately reproduce workplace interaction would be very boring TV.
So they're doing what they need to do...but there's no reason to try and interpret that dialogue as if it were real.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088022</id>
	<title>Re:Hear me out!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258133760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently I was too close to truth for some of the M$ $hills to handle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently I was too close to truth for some of the M $ $ hills to handle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently I was too close to truth for some of the M$ $hills to handle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087704</id>
	<title>Re:The Office - movie or TV show?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258132380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well, yes, I *AM* an idiot, but that's why I posted as Anonymous Coward when I'm unsure of things like that</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well , yes , I * AM * an idiot , but that 's why I posted as Anonymous Coward when I 'm unsure of things like that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well, yes, I *AM* an idiot, but that's why I posted as Anonymous Coward when I'm unsure of things like that</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30092538</id>
	<title>Re:Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258110780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Didn't read TFA - just skimmed it a bit, but let me get this straight, some guy has analysized a bunch of fake conversations (that were created by the various shows' writers) in order to produce an explanation of real world office dynamics?</p></div></blockquote><p>It's amazing the extent to which some people will go just to be able to sit in front of a TV for hours on end.</p><p>I remember doing a research paper in grad school on "storytelling in the Italian-American community based on the early films of Scorsese, DiPalma and Coppola".  I must have spent 100 hours with a TV and VCR and big bag of weed.  Despite the herbal enhancement, I can still recite every line of dialogue in Mean Streets.</p><p>I imagine that if I were in grad school today, my paper would be something along the lines of "Deconstructing Narrative Flow in the First Person Shooter".</p><p>Hey, at least I'm not saying it would be "The Modern Sexual Dynamic as Expressed through Erotic Images on the Internet".</p><p>[standard disclaimer regarding mention of drug use:  Honey, if you're reading this, you know daddy's kidding, right?]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't read TFA - just skimmed it a bit , but let me get this straight , some guy has analysized a bunch of fake conversations ( that were created by the various shows ' writers ) in order to produce an explanation of real world office dynamics ? It 's amazing the extent to which some people will go just to be able to sit in front of a TV for hours on end.I remember doing a research paper in grad school on " storytelling in the Italian-American community based on the early films of Scorsese , DiPalma and Coppola " .
I must have spent 100 hours with a TV and VCR and big bag of weed .
Despite the herbal enhancement , I can still recite every line of dialogue in Mean Streets.I imagine that if I were in grad school today , my paper would be something along the lines of " Deconstructing Narrative Flow in the First Person Shooter " .Hey , at least I 'm not saying it would be " The Modern Sexual Dynamic as Expressed through Erotic Images on the Internet " .
[ standard disclaimer regarding mention of drug use : Honey , if you 're reading this , you know daddy 's kidding , right ?
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't read TFA - just skimmed it a bit, but let me get this straight, some guy has analysized a bunch of fake conversations (that were created by the various shows' writers) in order to produce an explanation of real world office dynamics?It's amazing the extent to which some people will go just to be able to sit in front of a TV for hours on end.I remember doing a research paper in grad school on "storytelling in the Italian-American community based on the early films of Scorsese, DiPalma and Coppola".
I must have spent 100 hours with a TV and VCR and big bag of weed.
Despite the herbal enhancement, I can still recite every line of dialogue in Mean Streets.I imagine that if I were in grad school today, my paper would be something along the lines of "Deconstructing Narrative Flow in the First Person Shooter".Hey, at least I'm not saying it would be "The Modern Sexual Dynamic as Expressed through Erotic Images on the Internet".
[standard disclaimer regarding mention of drug use:  Honey, if you're reading this, you know daddy's kidding, right?
]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087844</id>
	<title>Re:American version Office, or the real one?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258132920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you need to realize they're referring to the Japanese version, which Gervais acknowledged inspired HIS version. You know, the true original version.</p><p>http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/clips/digital-short-the-japanese-office/252558/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you need to realize they 're referring to the Japanese version , which Gervais acknowledged inspired HIS version .
You know , the true original version.http : //www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/clips/digital-short-the-japanese-office/252558/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you need to realize they're referring to the Japanese version, which Gervais acknowledged inspired HIS version.
You know, the true original version.http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/clips/digital-short-the-japanese-office/252558/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087624</id>
	<title>i hope everyone realizes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258131840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that these stereotypes of behavior are aspects of everyone's personality, including yours</p><p>i would have hoped that people would have realized thinking about the world in this cliquish way went out of fashion in high school. simply because you realized in high school (or should have realized) that people aren't cartoonish cardboard cut-outs of one dimensional behavior</p><p>show me someone who is supposedly dead center for being, say, the "sociopath", and i'll show you their empathetic qualities. now also show me someone who is supposedly far removed from being the "sociopath" and i'll show you the sociopathic side to their personality</p><p>it makes for good television, but real people are a lot more complex than this derivative reductionist thinking that sells people short. its entertaining, but in real life, its brutalizing to your social interaction</p><p>thinking about people this way only hurts you, in the end, by hobbling you with a poor model of human thinking and interaction. such that you reduce the richness of your own social experience up front before you even have a chance, because your mentality has overly simplified the people around you. you sell them short, and in turn, you only wind up selling yourself short</p><p>in other words, you've become the source of the problem: i would call a person who uses these stereotypes as a way of thinking about people around them the only truly one-dimensional stereotype that has a ring of truth: "the feckless tool"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that these stereotypes of behavior are aspects of everyone 's personality , including yoursi would have hoped that people would have realized thinking about the world in this cliquish way went out of fashion in high school .
simply because you realized in high school ( or should have realized ) that people are n't cartoonish cardboard cut-outs of one dimensional behaviorshow me someone who is supposedly dead center for being , say , the " sociopath " , and i 'll show you their empathetic qualities .
now also show me someone who is supposedly far removed from being the " sociopath " and i 'll show you the sociopathic side to their personalityit makes for good television , but real people are a lot more complex than this derivative reductionist thinking that sells people short .
its entertaining , but in real life , its brutalizing to your social interactionthinking about people this way only hurts you , in the end , by hobbling you with a poor model of human thinking and interaction .
such that you reduce the richness of your own social experience up front before you even have a chance , because your mentality has overly simplified the people around you .
you sell them short , and in turn , you only wind up selling yourself shortin other words , you 've become the source of the problem : i would call a person who uses these stereotypes as a way of thinking about people around them the only truly one-dimensional stereotype that has a ring of truth : " the feckless tool "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that these stereotypes of behavior are aspects of everyone's personality, including yoursi would have hoped that people would have realized thinking about the world in this cliquish way went out of fashion in high school.
simply because you realized in high school (or should have realized) that people aren't cartoonish cardboard cut-outs of one dimensional behaviorshow me someone who is supposedly dead center for being, say, the "sociopath", and i'll show you their empathetic qualities.
now also show me someone who is supposedly far removed from being the "sociopath" and i'll show you the sociopathic side to their personalityit makes for good television, but real people are a lot more complex than this derivative reductionist thinking that sells people short.
its entertaining, but in real life, its brutalizing to your social interactionthinking about people this way only hurts you, in the end, by hobbling you with a poor model of human thinking and interaction.
such that you reduce the richness of your own social experience up front before you even have a chance, because your mentality has overly simplified the people around you.
you sell them short, and in turn, you only wind up selling yourself shortin other words, you've become the source of the problem: i would call a person who uses these stereotypes as a way of thinking about people around them the only truly one-dimensional stereotype that has a ring of truth: "the feckless tool"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088552</id>
	<title>Re:i hope everyone realizes</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1258136580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>that these stereotypes of behavior are aspects of everyone's personality, including yours</p></div></blockquote><p>Ditto for the Simpsons, and Family Guy and several other shows that are ridiculously more insightful into the human condition than The Office.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>that these stereotypes of behavior are aspects of everyone 's personality , including yoursDitto for the Simpsons , and Family Guy and several other shows that are ridiculously more insightful into the human condition than The Office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that these stereotypes of behavior are aspects of everyone's personality, including yoursDitto for the Simpsons, and Family Guy and several other shows that are ridiculously more insightful into the human condition than The Office.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087678</id>
	<title>American version Office, or the real one?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258132140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, if you're going to post this drivel, at least acknowledge the superiority of Ricky Gervais' version. I'm an American, and even I resent it when people assume that "The Office" is synonymous with the Greg Daniels version.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , if you 're going to post this drivel , at least acknowledge the superiority of Ricky Gervais ' version .
I 'm an American , and even I resent it when people assume that " The Office " is synonymous with the Greg Daniels version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, if you're going to post this drivel, at least acknowledge the superiority of Ricky Gervais' version.
I'm an American, and even I resent it when people assume that "The Office" is synonymous with the Greg Daniels version.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087882</id>
	<title>Re:Hear me out!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258133160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087928</id>
	<title>Re:This is crap.</title>
	<author>jeffmeden</author>
	<datestamp>1258133400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anything related to "The Office" is immediately beholden to all geeks, everywhere, for all time.  Just look at how many Wikipedia articles are dedicated to minutia from The Office, and compare that to say Particle Physics or FOSS, and the answer becomes clear: The Office is today's 'Geek Thing you have to love' just like Science Fiction or board games, both of which have very little to do with present day computer science or IT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything related to " The Office " is immediately beholden to all geeks , everywhere , for all time .
Just look at how many Wikipedia articles are dedicated to minutia from The Office , and compare that to say Particle Physics or FOSS , and the answer becomes clear : The Office is today 's 'Geek Thing you have to love ' just like Science Fiction or board games , both of which have very little to do with present day computer science or IT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything related to "The Office" is immediately beholden to all geeks, everywhere, for all time.
Just look at how many Wikipedia articles are dedicated to minutia from The Office, and compare that to say Particle Physics or FOSS, and the answer becomes clear: The Office is today's 'Geek Thing you have to love' just like Science Fiction or board games, both of which have very little to do with present day computer science or IT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30089610</id>
	<title>Re:This is crap.</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1258140480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i have to agree with you on this, i think these types of stories should be allowed to vote on and never allow that person to post again</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i have to agree with you on this , i think these types of stories should be allowed to vote on and never allow that person to post again</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i have to agree with you on this, i think these types of stories should be allowed to vote on and never allow that person to post again</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087630</id>
	<title>kdawson is an idiot.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258131900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, is it just me or is kdawson worthless?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , is it just me or is kdawson worthless ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, is it just me or is kdawson worthless?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087420</id>
	<title>The Office - movie or TV show?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258130940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The site in TFA is slashdotted.  Are we talking movie ("do you have your TPC report") or TV ("hey Pam, come and work for the Michael Scott paper company")</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The site in TFA is slashdotted .
Are we talking movie ( " do you have your TPC report " ) or TV ( " hey Pam , come and work for the Michael Scott paper company " )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The site in TFA is slashdotted.
Are we talking movie ("do you have your TPC report") or TV ("hey Pam, come and work for the Michael Scott paper company")</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088492</id>
	<title>Re:This is crap.</title>
	<author>EkriirkE</author>
	<datestamp>1258136340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>kdawson</htmltext>
<tokenext>kdawson</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kdawson</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088182</id>
	<title>Re:American version Office, or the real one?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258134600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, how outrageous, Americans assuming that "The Office" means the version shown on American television.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , how outrageous , Americans assuming that " The Office " means the version shown on American television .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, how outrageous, Americans assuming that "The Office" means the version shown on American television.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30090862</id>
	<title>Re:Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1258145580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;I believe they altered it to make it fit the US culture, mini series format, product placement and got a pit of writers in to add some jokes and make it run for half a dozen series.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;</p><p>What the heck are you talking about?  You're probably correct about the "writers" aspect (that's how TV is done here - group writing), but it's definitely not a "mini-series".  It's the standard 20-22 episodes per year that virtually all U.S. television shows follow.  A U.S. miniseries is typically 3-4 episodes and then done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; I believe they altered it to make it fit the US culture , mini series format , product placement and got a pit of writers in to add some jokes and make it run for half a dozen series. &gt; &gt; &gt; What the heck are you talking about ?
You 're probably correct about the " writers " aspect ( that 's how TV is done here - group writing ) , but it 's definitely not a " mini-series " .
It 's the standard 20-22 episodes per year that virtually all U.S. television shows follow .
A U.S. miniseries is typically 3-4 episodes and then done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;I believe they altered it to make it fit the US culture, mini series format, product placement and got a pit of writers in to add some jokes and make it run for half a dozen series.&gt;&gt;&gt;What the heck are you talking about?
You're probably correct about the "writers" aspect (that's how TV is done here - group writing), but it's definitely not a "mini-series".
It's the standard 20-22 episodes per year that virtually all U.S. television shows follow.
A U.S. miniseries is typically 3-4 episodes and then done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087410</id>
	<title>Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258130880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didn't read TFA - just skimmed it a bit, but let me get this straight, some guy has analysized a bunch of fake conversations (that were created by the various shows' writers) in order to produce an explanation of real world office dynamics?  </p><p>Do I have that right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't read TFA - just skimmed it a bit , but let me get this straight , some guy has analysized a bunch of fake conversations ( that were created by the various shows ' writers ) in order to produce an explanation of real world office dynamics ?
Do I have that right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't read TFA - just skimmed it a bit, but let me get this straight, some guy has analysized a bunch of fake conversations (that were created by the various shows' writers) in order to produce an explanation of real world office dynamics?
Do I have that right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088526</id>
	<title>Re:Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>icebraining</author>
	<datestamp>1258136460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up. The UK version is a real observation of life, much like The Royle Family, and its accuracy is what makes those shows great.</p><p>Someone once said to me: "Steve Carell tries to be funny. Ricky Gervais acts like a guy trying to be funny".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .
The UK version is a real observation of life , much like The Royle Family , and its accuracy is what makes those shows great.Someone once said to me : " Steve Carell tries to be funny .
Ricky Gervais acts like a guy trying to be funny " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.
The UK version is a real observation of life, much like The Royle Family, and its accuracy is what makes those shows great.Someone once said to me: "Steve Carell tries to be funny.
Ricky Gervais acts like a guy trying to be funny".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30092190</id>
	<title>Re:not sure I totally agree with what he says</title>
	<author>Impy the Impiuos Imp</author>
	<datestamp>1258108860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; scenes from Dune... "I knew it, he knew it, he knew I knew he knew it, but<br>&gt; he didn't realize I knew he knew I knew he knew it. The twitching of my<br>&gt; pinkie finger drew his attention away from my own eyebrow thus concealing my knowledge."</p><p>Jessica looked around the table.  Next to the Baron sat Pieter on one side, and Rabban the other.  Next to Pieter sat an obese creature more disgusting than either the Baron or his nephew.  This was Pieter's computer technician genius, a Palmtat, with the ego of a planet and the social graces of its muddy earth.  A wave of sexual revulsion swept Jessica, almost overwhelming her Bene Gesserit training.  A few quick darts of her eyes showed nobody had noticed, at least that she could catch.  She can't slip at this game.  "Strong like the oak," as she steeled herself at the disgusting presence and tried to ignore it.</p><p>"I'd love to have this recipe!" squeaked the thing, in an attempt at social ingratiation.  "Ok," she said, quickly turning elsewhere to avoid eye contact, lest it fall in love with her because she said more than one word to it.  While such a dependence might be useful some day, she would need months of Gesserit self-preparation before even dreaming of such.  And any touching would be right out.  Even using The Voice on it could prove disastrous if more than one or two syllables at a time.</p><p>No, whatever this thing called a mental discipline, it stood side-by-side with Mentat and Bene Gesserit in its depths of...what?  No, something scared Jessica, and she knew not what.  There was no knowledge in Bene Gesserit history of such mental training, and she could only guess at it.  A normal Palmtat, well, this was something different.  Something more.  She would have to talk to the Mother later and see if she had anything to say.</p><p>For now, Jessica just initiated conversation with an accomplice far to the right, as if they had been speaking all along, to divert the attention of it.  With a flick of her brow, Jessica pleaded volumes of "come save me, dammit!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; scenes from Dune... " I knew it , he knew it , he knew I knew he knew it , but &gt; he did n't realize I knew he knew I knew he knew it .
The twitching of my &gt; pinkie finger drew his attention away from my own eyebrow thus concealing my knowledge .
" Jessica looked around the table .
Next to the Baron sat Pieter on one side , and Rabban the other .
Next to Pieter sat an obese creature more disgusting than either the Baron or his nephew .
This was Pieter 's computer technician genius , a Palmtat , with the ego of a planet and the social graces of its muddy earth .
A wave of sexual revulsion swept Jessica , almost overwhelming her Bene Gesserit training .
A few quick darts of her eyes showed nobody had noticed , at least that she could catch .
She ca n't slip at this game .
" Strong like the oak , " as she steeled herself at the disgusting presence and tried to ignore it .
" I 'd love to have this recipe !
" squeaked the thing , in an attempt at social ingratiation .
" Ok , " she said , quickly turning elsewhere to avoid eye contact , lest it fall in love with her because she said more than one word to it .
While such a dependence might be useful some day , she would need months of Gesserit self-preparation before even dreaming of such .
And any touching would be right out .
Even using The Voice on it could prove disastrous if more than one or two syllables at a time.No , whatever this thing called a mental discipline , it stood side-by-side with Mentat and Bene Gesserit in its depths of...what ?
No , something scared Jessica , and she knew not what .
There was no knowledge in Bene Gesserit history of such mental training , and she could only guess at it .
A normal Palmtat , well , this was something different .
Something more .
She would have to talk to the Mother later and see if she had anything to say.For now , Jessica just initiated conversation with an accomplice far to the right , as if they had been speaking all along , to divert the attention of it .
With a flick of her brow , Jessica pleaded volumes of " come save me , dammit !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; scenes from Dune... "I knew it, he knew it, he knew I knew he knew it, but&gt; he didn't realize I knew he knew I knew he knew it.
The twitching of my&gt; pinkie finger drew his attention away from my own eyebrow thus concealing my knowledge.
"Jessica looked around the table.
Next to the Baron sat Pieter on one side, and Rabban the other.
Next to Pieter sat an obese creature more disgusting than either the Baron or his nephew.
This was Pieter's computer technician genius, a Palmtat, with the ego of a planet and the social graces of its muddy earth.
A wave of sexual revulsion swept Jessica, almost overwhelming her Bene Gesserit training.
A few quick darts of her eyes showed nobody had noticed, at least that she could catch.
She can't slip at this game.
"Strong like the oak," as she steeled herself at the disgusting presence and tried to ignore it.
"I'd love to have this recipe!
" squeaked the thing, in an attempt at social ingratiation.
"Ok," she said, quickly turning elsewhere to avoid eye contact, lest it fall in love with her because she said more than one word to it.
While such a dependence might be useful some day, she would need months of Gesserit self-preparation before even dreaming of such.
And any touching would be right out.
Even using The Voice on it could prove disastrous if more than one or two syllables at a time.No, whatever this thing called a mental discipline, it stood side-by-side with Mentat and Bene Gesserit in its depths of...what?
No, something scared Jessica, and she knew not what.
There was no knowledge in Bene Gesserit history of such mental training, and she could only guess at it.
A normal Palmtat, well, this was something different.
Something more.
She would have to talk to the Mother later and see if she had anything to say.For now, Jessica just initiated conversation with an accomplice far to the right, as if they had been speaking all along, to divert the attention of it.
With a flick of her brow, Jessica pleaded volumes of "come save me, dammit!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087880</id>
	<title>Re:The Office - movie or TV show?</title>
	<author>nexxuz</author>
	<datestamp>1258133160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And it's "TPS Report"<br> <br>Just an FYI</htmltext>
<tokenext>And it 's " TPS Report " Just an FYI</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it's "TPS Report" Just an FYI</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30096678</id>
	<title>Re:Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258206180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you powertalking or just posturing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you powertalking or just posturing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you powertalking or just posturing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087370</id>
	<title>Incomplete analysis</title>
	<author>eln</author>
	<datestamp>1258130700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about clueless loser sociopaths?  How do we^H^Hthey communicate?  Or do they just use all of these different "languages" to talk to themselves?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about clueless loser sociopaths ?
How do we ^ H ^ Hthey communicate ?
Or do they just use all of these different " languages " to talk to themselves ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about clueless loser sociopaths?
How do we^H^Hthey communicate?
Or do they just use all of these different "languages" to talk to themselves?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30089278</id>
	<title>Re:i hope everyone realizes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258139340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quit looking at my personality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quit looking at my personality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quit looking at my personality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30096514</id>
	<title>Now I have to read this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258203420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks a lot everybody. The fact that everything on the first page of responses (group think) beat down the TFA...  Now I must read everything by this guy.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... my proving word is remorse</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks a lot everybody .
The fact that everything on the first page of responses ( group think ) beat down the TFA... Now I must read everything by this guy .
... my proving word is remorse</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks a lot everybody.
The fact that everything on the first page of responses (group think) beat down the TFA...  Now I must read everything by this guy.
... my proving word is remorse</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30091890</id>
	<title>Re:Incomplete analysis</title>
	<author>Fulcrum of Evil</author>
	<datestamp>1258107120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What about clueless loser sociopaths?  How do we^H^Hthey communicate?  Or do they just use all of these different "languages" to talk to themselves?</p></div><p>They burn down the building. Duh...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about clueless loser sociopaths ?
How do we ^ H ^ Hthey communicate ?
Or do they just use all of these different " languages " to talk to themselves ? They burn down the building .
Duh.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about clueless loser sociopaths?
How do we^H^Hthey communicate?
Or do they just use all of these different "languages" to talk to themselves?They burn down the building.
Duh...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088442</id>
	<title>Re:American version Office, or the real one?</title>
	<author>mevets</author>
	<datestamp>1258136100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think to appeal to the nAmerican wit, they had to cram 2 seasons worth of material into 7.    Both are hilarious.  I think the original offends nAmerican sensibilities because it is too unforgiving.</p><p>I hope he doesn't do an nAmerican version of Extras; it was tuned to perfection, and does a great job of lampooning the way The Office had to be tamed for general consumption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think to appeal to the nAmerican wit , they had to cram 2 seasons worth of material into 7 .
Both are hilarious .
I think the original offends nAmerican sensibilities because it is too unforgiving.I hope he does n't do an nAmerican version of Extras ; it was tuned to perfection , and does a great job of lampooning the way The Office had to be tamed for general consumption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think to appeal to the nAmerican wit, they had to cram 2 seasons worth of material into 7.
Both are hilarious.
I think the original offends nAmerican sensibilities because it is too unforgiving.I hope he doesn't do an nAmerican version of Extras; it was tuned to perfection, and does a great job of lampooning the way The Office had to be tamed for general consumption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30091734</id>
	<title>Re:Writers never worked in a real office</title>
	<author>drsquare</author>
	<datestamp>1258106340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Thus they don't know a thing about it...but...they're creating an entertaining fiction. To acurately reproduce workplace interaction would be very boring TV. So they're doing what they need to do...but there's no reason to try and interpret that dialogue as if it were real.</p></div></blockquote><p>I wouldn't agree with that, The Office (the UK version at least, not the US sitcom), is a pretty accurate reproduction of a work place. Ricky Gervais wouldn't have been able to write that unless he had experience of such a place.</p><p>The dialogue is as realistic as anywhere I've ever worked, and it captures the ennui of a dead-end workplace to perfection.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thus they do n't know a thing about it...but...they 're creating an entertaining fiction .
To acurately reproduce workplace interaction would be very boring TV .
So they 're doing what they need to do...but there 's no reason to try and interpret that dialogue as if it were real.I would n't agree with that , The Office ( the UK version at least , not the US sitcom ) , is a pretty accurate reproduction of a work place .
Ricky Gervais would n't have been able to write that unless he had experience of such a place.The dialogue is as realistic as anywhere I 've ever worked , and it captures the ennui of a dead-end workplace to perfection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thus they don't know a thing about it...but...they're creating an entertaining fiction.
To acurately reproduce workplace interaction would be very boring TV.
So they're doing what they need to do...but there's no reason to try and interpret that dialogue as if it were real.I wouldn't agree with that, The Office (the UK version at least, not the US sitcom), is a pretty accurate reproduction of a work place.
Ricky Gervais wouldn't have been able to write that unless he had experience of such a place.The dialogue is as realistic as anywhere I've ever worked, and it captures the ennui of a dead-end workplace to perfection.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087878</id>
	<title>Re:Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1258133100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but... is the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00jd68z" title="bbc.co.uk">The Office</a> [bbc.co.uk], or the US version?</p><p>The original was unbelievably true to dysfunctional form. I Everyone I know says "yeah, I used to work for a guy like that". that's mainly what made it so popular. The US version... well, I believe they altered it to make it fit the US culture, mini series format, product placement and got a pit of writers in to add some jokes and make it run for half a dozen series. I'm sure the joke wore thin after the 1st.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but... is the The Office [ bbc.co.uk ] , or the US version ? The original was unbelievably true to dysfunctional form .
I Everyone I know says " yeah , I used to work for a guy like that " .
that 's mainly what made it so popular .
The US version... well , I believe they altered it to make it fit the US culture , mini series format , product placement and got a pit of writers in to add some jokes and make it run for half a dozen series .
I 'm sure the joke wore thin after the 1st .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but... is the The Office [bbc.co.uk], or the US version?The original was unbelievably true to dysfunctional form.
I Everyone I know says "yeah, I used to work for a guy like that".
that's mainly what made it so popular.
The US version... well, I believe they altered it to make it fit the US culture, mini series format, product placement and got a pit of writers in to add some jokes and make it run for half a dozen series.
I'm sure the joke wore thin after the 1st.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30090316</id>
	<title>the author may be clueless</title>
	<author>PJ6</author>
	<datestamp>1258143120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's translate the diagram into a logical statement:<br>
<br>
<i>if you're not a sociopath, you are either clueless or a loser</i> <br>
<br>
I don't think the author fully understands what a sociopath is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's translate the diagram into a logical statement : if you 're not a sociopath , you are either clueless or a loser I do n't think the author fully understands what a sociopath is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's translate the diagram into a logical statement:

if you're not a sociopath, you are either clueless or a loser 

I don't think the author fully understands what a sociopath is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30090038</id>
	<title>Well, I'M A LOSER (UR2 UFO and ICU812) U2 sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258142100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last train's eleven, it's now quarter past<br>Why're you tryin' to make the evenin' move so fast<br>I'm in real trouble but I can't go back home<br>They locked the doors and I'm left out alone</p><p>You can come to my place and sleep on the couch<br>Lots of people do it and we won't leave you out<br>Hard times out on the Street<br>Hard times, hard to beat</p><p>The painted lies they all hand you<br>I'm a loser on the road<br>I'm a loser on the road, yeah</p><p>Euston station and it's cold as ice<br>AlI night specials, they move you on<br>But me and Ginger over there<br>We got this thing where we really take care</p><p>I'm a loser, I'm a loser<br>I'm a loser</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last train 's eleven , it 's now quarter pastWhy 're you tryin ' to make the evenin ' move so fastI 'm in real trouble but I ca n't go back homeThey locked the doors and I 'm left out aloneYou can come to my place and sleep on the couchLots of people do it and we wo n't leave you outHard times out on the StreetHard times , hard to beatThe painted lies they all hand youI 'm a loser on the roadI 'm a loser on the road , yeahEuston station and it 's cold as iceAlI night specials , they move you onBut me and Ginger over thereWe got this thing where we really take careI 'm a loser , I 'm a loserI 'm a loser</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last train's eleven, it's now quarter pastWhy're you tryin' to make the evenin' move so fastI'm in real trouble but I can't go back homeThey locked the doors and I'm left out aloneYou can come to my place and sleep on the couchLots of people do it and we won't leave you outHard times out on the StreetHard times, hard to beatThe painted lies they all hand youI'm a loser on the roadI'm a loser on the road, yeahEuston station and it's cold as iceAlI night specials, they move you onBut me and Ginger over thereWe got this thing where we really take careI'm a loser, I'm a loserI'm a loser</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088284</id>
	<title>Re:American version Office, or the real one?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258135140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We'll just refer to the one that lasted more than 2 seasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'll just refer to the one that lasted more than 2 seasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'll just refer to the one that lasted more than 2 seasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088548</id>
	<title>Boiler room?</title>
	<author>Provocateur</author>
	<datestamp>1258136520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always thought of it as a poor man's <i>Glengarry Glen Ross</i></p><p>And considering that my pick is an all-male flick, which describes most of the close-quarter workplaces we're accustomed to, feel free to chime in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought of it as a poor man 's Glengarry Glen RossAnd considering that my pick is an all-male flick , which describes most of the close-quarter workplaces we 're accustomed to , feel free to chime in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought of it as a poor man's Glengarry Glen RossAnd considering that my pick is an all-male flick, which describes most of the close-quarter workplaces we're accustomed to, feel free to chime in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30103516</id>
	<title>Re:Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258217880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's realism is why I couldn't enjoy that show. I just had to many flashbacks... And I'm only 23...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's realism is why I could n't enjoy that show .
I just had to many flashbacks... And I 'm only 23.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's realism is why I couldn't enjoy that show.
I just had to many flashbacks... And I'm only 23...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30098106</id>
	<title>Re:Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>NotPeteMcCabe</author>
	<datestamp>1258219500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, I don't believe you have that right. The guy is not using The Office as evidence or as the source of his theories. He is using The Office to illustrate his theories, as examples that (he hopes) his audience will be familiar with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , I do n't believe you have that right .
The guy is not using The Office as evidence or as the source of his theories .
He is using The Office to illustrate his theories , as examples that ( he hopes ) his audience will be familiar with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, I don't believe you have that right.
The guy is not using The Office as evidence or as the source of his theories.
He is using The Office to illustrate his theories, as examples that (he hopes) his audience will be familiar with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088008</id>
	<title>Re:not sure I totally agree with what he says</title>
	<author>Abreu</author>
	<datestamp>1258133760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"What's wrong?" "Nothing." "Ok! I'll be on my way." Nooo, that's the nothing that means there's something and I'm supposed to fish.</p></div><p>Bazinga!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" What 's wrong ?
" " Nothing .
" " Ok !
I 'll be on my way .
" Nooo , that 's the nothing that means there 's something and I 'm supposed to fish.Bazinga !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What's wrong?
" "Nothing.
" "Ok!
I'll be on my way.
" Nooo, that's the nothing that means there's something and I'm supposed to fish.Bazinga!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087612</id>
	<title>Re: The Languages of "The Office"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258131780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBOL" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">COBOL</a> [wikipedia.org]?</p><p>Don't watch the telly, it <i>will</i> melt your mind. Kill your TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean COBOL [ wikipedia.org ] ? Do n't watch the telly , it will melt your mind .
Kill your TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean COBOL [wikipedia.org]?Don't watch the telly, it will melt your mind.
Kill your TV.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087972</id>
	<title>Sarcasm</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1258133580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It has been a way for powerless losers to get back at uppity assholes.  Doesn't work quite so well with group-think delivery, though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has been a way for powerless losers to get back at uppity assholes .
Does n't work quite so well with group-think delivery , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has been a way for powerless losers to get back at uppity assholes.
Doesn't work quite so well with group-think delivery, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087430</id>
	<title>This is crap.</title>
	<author>C10H14N2</author>
	<datestamp>1258131000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously. Why the hell is this on Slashdot AT ALL much less on the front page? Even in whatever field this is attempting to masquerade, this isn't even craptastic. It's just crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
Why the hell is this on Slashdot AT ALL much less on the front page ?
Even in whatever field this is attempting to masquerade , this is n't even craptastic .
It 's just crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
Why the hell is this on Slashdot AT ALL much less on the front page?
Even in whatever field this is attempting to masquerade, this isn't even craptastic.
It's just crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088634</id>
	<title>Re:i hope everyone realizes</title>
	<author>Marxist Hacker 42</author>
	<datestamp>1258136880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True enough, as far as it goes.  But these three stereotypes are mutually exclusive when it comes to the cut-down face we show at work in our careers, and eventually, one of the three will take over your career and there is NOTHING you can do about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True enough , as far as it goes .
But these three stereotypes are mutually exclusive when it comes to the cut-down face we show at work in our careers , and eventually , one of the three will take over your career and there is NOTHING you can do about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True enough, as far as it goes.
But these three stereotypes are mutually exclusive when it comes to the cut-down face we show at work in our careers, and eventually, one of the three will take over your career and there is NOTHING you can do about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30094784</id>
	<title>Jewish culture has known this for a long time</title>
	<author>rkinch</author>
	<datestamp>1258130220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Only a schmuck works for somebody else."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Only a schmuck works for somebody else .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Only a schmuck works for somebody else.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087816</id>
	<title>/. in full effect</title>
	<author>splatter</author>
	<datestamp>1258132860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we get a mirror. The entire domain has been<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'ed to hell</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we get a mirror .
The entire domain has been / .
'ed to hell</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we get a mirror.
The entire domain has been /.
'ed to hell</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30092794</id>
	<title>Re:i hope everyone realizes</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1258112580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And there's not a damned thing you can do about it, because your talents are what they are and you can't change them.</p></div><p>
I suppose I am supposed to remember this the next time I want to learn a new  instrument? Or, perhaps I should tell my wrists and forearms to forget the muscle memory I instilled in them half way through high school, when I started playing the drums, so that my talents will never change because trying to do so was, in fact, hopeless.
<br> <br>
I see where you are coming from for the majority of your post, but that last sentence needs to be lopped off maliciously my friend. You can change your talents your entire life. It's why we go to school. It's how we learn to deal with insurance companies. It's how we learn to parent our kids and date our girls. Saying that your talents are what they are and you can't change them is just a tired form of orneriness that is, frankly, ridiculous.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And there 's not a damned thing you can do about it , because your talents are what they are and you ca n't change them .
I suppose I am supposed to remember this the next time I want to learn a new instrument ?
Or , perhaps I should tell my wrists and forearms to forget the muscle memory I instilled in them half way through high school , when I started playing the drums , so that my talents will never change because trying to do so was , in fact , hopeless .
I see where you are coming from for the majority of your post , but that last sentence needs to be lopped off maliciously my friend .
You can change your talents your entire life .
It 's why we go to school .
It 's how we learn to deal with insurance companies .
It 's how we learn to parent our kids and date our girls .
Saying that your talents are what they are and you ca n't change them is just a tired form of orneriness that is , frankly , ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And there's not a damned thing you can do about it, because your talents are what they are and you can't change them.
I suppose I am supposed to remember this the next time I want to learn a new  instrument?
Or, perhaps I should tell my wrists and forearms to forget the muscle memory I instilled in them half way through high school, when I started playing the drums, so that my talents will never change because trying to do so was, in fact, hopeless.
I see where you are coming from for the majority of your post, but that last sentence needs to be lopped off maliciously my friend.
You can change your talents your entire life.
It's why we go to school.
It's how we learn to deal with insurance companies.
It's how we learn to parent our kids and date our girls.
Saying that your talents are what they are and you can't change them is just a tired form of orneriness that is, frankly, ridiculous.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087338</id>
	<title>Hear me out!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258130520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I have a theory that I would like to outline for you all.  Constantly on this site you hear someone get labeled as an M$ $hill! because they make a statement that is favorably or isn't damning of Microsoft.  But why would M$ waste it's money buying people to shill for them when it would be so obviously seen through? I propose that instead that the real M$ $hills are the people who claim to be pro-FLOSS but do their best to make the rest of us free software supporters look stupid and extremely fundamentalist so we can be easily written off as extremists.  This way, M$ and other proprietary software companies have an easy target to point their customers to when they make their biased sales pitches against free softare OSes like Linux in favor of their proprietary offerings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I have a theory that I would like to outline for you all .
Constantly on this site you hear someone get labeled as an M $ $ hill !
because they make a statement that is favorably or is n't damning of Microsoft .
But why would M $ waste it 's money buying people to shill for them when it would be so obviously seen through ?
I propose that instead that the real M $ $ hills are the people who claim to be pro-FLOSS but do their best to make the rest of us free software supporters look stupid and extremely fundamentalist so we can be easily written off as extremists .
This way , M $ and other proprietary software companies have an easy target to point their customers to when they make their biased sales pitches against free softare OSes like Linux in favor of their proprietary offerings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I have a theory that I would like to outline for you all.
Constantly on this site you hear someone get labeled as an M$ $hill!
because they make a statement that is favorably or isn't damning of Microsoft.
But why would M$ waste it's money buying people to shill for them when it would be so obviously seen through?
I propose that instead that the real M$ $hills are the people who claim to be pro-FLOSS but do their best to make the rest of us free software supporters look stupid and extremely fundamentalist so we can be easily written off as extremists.
This way, M$ and other proprietary software companies have an easy target to point their customers to when they make their biased sales pitches against free softare OSes like Linux in favor of their proprietary offerings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087682</id>
	<title>Re:kdawson is an idiot.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258132200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Seriously, is it just me or is kdawson worthless?
</i> <br>
<br>
No, it's not just you. You're both worthless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , is it just me or is kdawson worthless ?
No , it 's not just you .
You 're both worthless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, is it just me or is kdawson worthless?
No, it's not just you.
You're both worthless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087500</id>
	<title>not sure I totally agree with what he says</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1258131240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's certainly layers of nuance and meaning that can get heaped onto human communication. As an aspie geek, it's very easy for me to get what was literally said and completely blow past the subtext. "What's wrong?" "Nothing." "Ok! I'll be on my way." Nooo, that's the nothing that means there's something and I'm supposed to fish.</p><p>However, the author really starts heaping on the layers of meaning in his examples. It reminds me of the conference scenes from Dune where whole conversations are intuited from the lifting of an eyebrow. "I knew it, he knew it, he knew I knew he knew it, but he didn't realize I knew he knew I knew he knew it. The twitching of my pinkie finger drew his attention away from my own eyebrow thus concealing my knowledge." Puts me in mind of great bits of comedy where sophisticated and devious characters are speaking obliquely around a topic of great significance, doing so in such a way that they soon realize they're not entirely sure if they're both having the same conversation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's certainly layers of nuance and meaning that can get heaped onto human communication .
As an aspie geek , it 's very easy for me to get what was literally said and completely blow past the subtext .
" What 's wrong ?
" " Nothing .
" " Ok !
I 'll be on my way .
" Nooo , that 's the nothing that means there 's something and I 'm supposed to fish.However , the author really starts heaping on the layers of meaning in his examples .
It reminds me of the conference scenes from Dune where whole conversations are intuited from the lifting of an eyebrow .
" I knew it , he knew it , he knew I knew he knew it , but he did n't realize I knew he knew I knew he knew it .
The twitching of my pinkie finger drew his attention away from my own eyebrow thus concealing my knowledge .
" Puts me in mind of great bits of comedy where sophisticated and devious characters are speaking obliquely around a topic of great significance , doing so in such a way that they soon realize they 're not entirely sure if they 're both having the same conversation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's certainly layers of nuance and meaning that can get heaped onto human communication.
As an aspie geek, it's very easy for me to get what was literally said and completely blow past the subtext.
"What's wrong?
" "Nothing.
" "Ok!
I'll be on my way.
" Nooo, that's the nothing that means there's something and I'm supposed to fish.However, the author really starts heaping on the layers of meaning in his examples.
It reminds me of the conference scenes from Dune where whole conversations are intuited from the lifting of an eyebrow.
"I knew it, he knew it, he knew I knew he knew it, but he didn't realize I knew he knew I knew he knew it.
The twitching of my pinkie finger drew his attention away from my own eyebrow thus concealing my knowledge.
" Puts me in mind of great bits of comedy where sophisticated and devious characters are speaking obliquely around a topic of great significance, doing so in such a way that they soon realize they're not entirely sure if they're both having the same conversation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088058</id>
	<title>Re:American version Office, or the real one?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258133940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a reason for that. You're in America, where the Ricky Gervais' version isn't widely aired.<br><br>Combine that with it's lack of character depth and you have a largely unmemorable series.<br><br>The Greg Daniel's version has significantly more drama and storyline, which is why it's more popular in the 'States.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a reason for that .
You 're in America , where the Ricky Gervais ' version is n't widely aired.Combine that with it 's lack of character depth and you have a largely unmemorable series.The Greg Daniel 's version has significantly more drama and storyline , which is why it 's more popular in the 'States .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a reason for that.
You're in America, where the Ricky Gervais' version isn't widely aired.Combine that with it's lack of character depth and you have a largely unmemorable series.The Greg Daniel's version has significantly more drama and storyline, which is why it's more popular in the 'States.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088600</id>
	<title>Re:i hope everyone realizes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258136700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>a rant against generalizations on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. -- so typical</htmltext>
<tokenext>a rant against generalizations on / .
-- so typical</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a rant against generalizations on /.
-- so typical</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30094538</id>
	<title>Re:Let me get this straight</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258127100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does it also bug you that people study literature or historical accounts which may very well be somewhat fictionalized/idealized portrayals of real events, and attempt to use them to understand human interaction?</p></div><p>How did you know?</p><p>Art majors are know-nothings who are full of it.</p><p>Remember Sokal affair? Well, we scientists are not done with you yet. Keep doing your antics. One day we will really expose you all to be the frauds that you are.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it also bug you that people study literature or historical accounts which may very well be somewhat fictionalized/idealized portrayals of real events , and attempt to use them to understand human interaction ? How did you know ? Art majors are know-nothings who are full of it.Remember Sokal affair ?
Well , we scientists are not done with you yet .
Keep doing your antics .
One day we will really expose you all to be the frauds that you are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it also bug you that people study literature or historical accounts which may very well be somewhat fictionalized/idealized portrayals of real events, and attempt to use them to understand human interaction?How did you know?Art majors are know-nothings who are full of it.Remember Sokal affair?
Well, we scientists are not done with you yet.
Keep doing your antics.
One day we will really expose you all to be the frauds that you are.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088084</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087672</id>
	<title>Stereotypes are a real timesaver</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258132140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I can't be bothered to read the entire article before saying this.
</p><p>
I don't claim to not stereotype at all - it's an outgroup homogenity bias that all of us have built into us. But I've learnt not to classify people into categories, rather assign qualities to each person I meet instead. I find that a much more natural order of thought in my head, but almost useless to compare notes with.
</p><p>
At least this way my vocabulary-of-people is more like words instead of just individual alphabets (yeah, you sound like an<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... alpha-male).
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't be bothered to read the entire article before saying this .
I do n't claim to not stereotype at all - it 's an outgroup homogenity bias that all of us have built into us .
But I 've learnt not to classify people into categories , rather assign qualities to each person I meet instead .
I find that a much more natural order of thought in my head , but almost useless to compare notes with .
At least this way my vocabulary-of-people is more like words instead of just individual alphabets ( yeah , you sound like an ... alpha-male ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I can't be bothered to read the entire article before saying this.
I don't claim to not stereotype at all - it's an outgroup homogenity bias that all of us have built into us.
But I've learnt not to classify people into categories, rather assign qualities to each person I meet instead.
I find that a much more natural order of thought in my head, but almost useless to compare notes with.
At least this way my vocabulary-of-people is more like words instead of just individual alphabets (yeah, you sound like an ... alpha-male).
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30089756</id>
	<title>Having thought about it a little...</title>
	<author>XDirtypunkX</author>
	<datestamp>1258141020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sociopaths (that is, people with a brand of Antisocial Personality Disorder that have a pathological failure at true interaction with society) is probably not the correct term for the people at the top. What these people actually have is more likely Narcissistic Personality Disorder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sociopaths ( that is , people with a brand of Antisocial Personality Disorder that have a pathological failure at true interaction with society ) is probably not the correct term for the people at the top .
What these people actually have is more likely Narcissistic Personality Disorder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sociopaths (that is, people with a brand of Antisocial Personality Disorder that have a pathological failure at true interaction with society) is probably not the correct term for the people at the top.
What these people actually have is more likely Narcissistic Personality Disorder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30091734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30092794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30090862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30096678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30089278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30103516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30091214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30092190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30098106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30092538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30092808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30089610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30094798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30091890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30094538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_147255_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_147255.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30092538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088084
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30094538
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30096678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30090862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30103516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30092808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30098106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_147255.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_147255.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_147255.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087578
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_147255.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30091214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30091734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_147255.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_147255.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30091890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_147255.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_147255.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30092190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_147255.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_147255.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30089278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30092794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30094798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_147255.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30087928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30088492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30089610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_147255.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_147255.30089756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
