<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_19_1245234</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T Loses First Legal Battle Against Verizon</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1258637940000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>FutureDomain writes <i>"A federal judge in Atlanta has <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686\_3-10401094-266.html">declined a restraining order from AT&amp;T</a> that would have prevented Verizon from running ads that compared their 3G coverage to AT&amp;T's. <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/11/04/1428254/ATampT-Sues-Verizon-Over-Map-For-That-Ads">AT&amp;T felt that Verizon's ads 'mislead consumers</a> into thinking that AT&amp;T doesn't offer wireless service in large portions of the country, which is clearly not the case.' Verizon argued that the ads clearly indicated that the maps were only of 3G coverage, and that AT&amp;T is only suing because it <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686\_3-10399747-266.html">doesn't want to face the truth about its network</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>FutureDomain writes " A federal judge in Atlanta has declined a restraining order from AT&amp;T that would have prevented Verizon from running ads that compared their 3G coverage to AT&amp;T 's .
AT&amp;T felt that Verizon 's ads 'mislead consumers into thinking that AT&amp;T does n't offer wireless service in large portions of the country , which is clearly not the case .
' Verizon argued that the ads clearly indicated that the maps were only of 3G coverage , and that AT&amp;T is only suing because it does n't want to face the truth about its network .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FutureDomain writes "A federal judge in Atlanta has declined a restraining order from AT&amp;T that would have prevented Verizon from running ads that compared their 3G coverage to AT&amp;T's.
AT&amp;T felt that Verizon's ads 'mislead consumers into thinking that AT&amp;T doesn't offer wireless service in large portions of the country, which is clearly not the case.
' Verizon argued that the ads clearly indicated that the maps were only of 3G coverage, and that AT&amp;T is only suing because it doesn't want to face the truth about its network.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157240</id>
	<title>Re:Maps</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258649160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me get this straight. Both phones actually work on the peninsula. They just don't work inside the house? So, you think Verizon should note this on their map? You ever think its just the house, dude?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me get this straight .
Both phones actually work on the peninsula .
They just do n't work inside the house ?
So , you think Verizon should note this on their map ?
You ever think its just the house , dude ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me get this straight.
Both phones actually work on the peninsula.
They just don't work inside the house?
So, you think Verizon should note this on their map?
You ever think its just the house, dude?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30161872</id>
	<title>Re:Who needs that much 3G coverage?</title>
	<author>Slashdot Parent</author>
	<datestamp>1258663500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you never travel, why not simply purchase a regional plan?  It'll save you some $$.</p><p>Personally, I do travel, and I pay for a nationwide plan, and I expect my nationwide plan to work nationwide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you never travel , why not simply purchase a regional plan ?
It 'll save you some $ $ .Personally , I do travel , and I pay for a nationwide plan , and I expect my nationwide plan to work nationwide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you never travel, why not simply purchase a regional plan?
It'll save you some $$.Personally, I do travel, and I pay for a nationwide plan, and I expect my nationwide plan to work nationwide.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155634</id>
	<title>Re:Truth In Advertising</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1258643460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I have seen AT&amp;T claims they have the "fastest", while Verizon claims it has the "largest".  From my own experience, this seems true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I have seen AT&amp;T claims they have the " fastest " , while Verizon claims it has the " largest " .
From my own experience , this seems true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I have seen AT&amp;T claims they have the "fastest", while Verizon claims it has the "largest".
From my own experience, this seems true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155746</id>
	<title>Actually, I feel for them.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258644000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've personally fallen for a similar scam (or so I felt) when I bought a digital camera. The camera included a "lithium digital camera battery" but failed to mention that it was a throw-away, non-rechargeable battery. When I got it home and opened it, I was exasperated to read the documentation and find that the rechargeable batteries are "lithium-<em>ion</em>" and I'm expected to buy them separately &ndash; and to add insult to injury, at inflated prices. Yeah, I made an uninformed decision when I bought the camera, but I felt that Kodak (yes, I'll name names) deliberately tried to leave it confusing so that people would do exactly as I did.</p><p><em>Truth</em> in advertising, IMHO, would be served if Verizon was required to put a tagline to the effect that "Note: Normal cellular calling coverage may extend outside the 3G-covered area". A lot of normal users don't know the difference between "3G" and regular talk coverage any more than I knew the difference between "lithium" and "lithium-ion" batteries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've personally fallen for a similar scam ( or so I felt ) when I bought a digital camera .
The camera included a " lithium digital camera battery " but failed to mention that it was a throw-away , non-rechargeable battery .
When I got it home and opened it , I was exasperated to read the documentation and find that the rechargeable batteries are " lithium-ion " and I 'm expected to buy them separately    and to add insult to injury , at inflated prices .
Yeah , I made an uninformed decision when I bought the camera , but I felt that Kodak ( yes , I 'll name names ) deliberately tried to leave it confusing so that people would do exactly as I did.Truth in advertising , IMHO , would be served if Verizon was required to put a tagline to the effect that " Note : Normal cellular calling coverage may extend outside the 3G-covered area " .
A lot of normal users do n't know the difference between " 3G " and regular talk coverage any more than I knew the difference between " lithium " and " lithium-ion " batteries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've personally fallen for a similar scam (or so I felt) when I bought a digital camera.
The camera included a "lithium digital camera battery" but failed to mention that it was a throw-away, non-rechargeable battery.
When I got it home and opened it, I was exasperated to read the documentation and find that the rechargeable batteries are "lithium-ion" and I'm expected to buy them separately – and to add insult to injury, at inflated prices.
Yeah, I made an uninformed decision when I bought the camera, but I felt that Kodak (yes, I'll name names) deliberately tried to leave it confusing so that people would do exactly as I did.Truth in advertising, IMHO, would be served if Verizon was required to put a tagline to the effect that "Note: Normal cellular calling coverage may extend outside the 3G-covered area".
A lot of normal users don't know the difference between "3G" and regular talk coverage any more than I knew the difference between "lithium" and "lithium-ion" batteries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156364</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised?</title>
	<author>jeffasselin</author>
	<datestamp>1258646400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lucky they're in the US, where the truth is an absolute defence against libel and slander. Were they in the UK, Verizon might actually be in trouble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lucky they 're in the US , where the truth is an absolute defence against libel and slander .
Were they in the UK , Verizon might actually be in trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lucky they're in the US, where the truth is an absolute defence against libel and slander.
Were they in the UK, Verizon might actually be in trouble.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155306</id>
	<title>Of course they did...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258641720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because it's not LIBEL if it's TRUE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because it 's not LIBEL if it 's TRUE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because it's not LIBEL if it's TRUE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30161440</id>
	<title>Can't Wait</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258662120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the iPhone is really going to be available from Verizon, I cannot WAIT to see how many problems they have with network bandwith and all that other stuff because iPhone users are taxing it.</p><p>And as others have undoubtedly pointed out, let's just see if Verizon doesn't cap your data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the iPhone is really going to be available from Verizon , I can not WAIT to see how many problems they have with network bandwith and all that other stuff because iPhone users are taxing it.And as others have undoubtedly pointed out , let 's just see if Verizon does n't cap your data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the iPhone is really going to be available from Verizon, I cannot WAIT to see how many problems they have with network bandwith and all that other stuff because iPhone users are taxing it.And as others have undoubtedly pointed out, let's just see if Verizon doesn't cap your data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155568</id>
	<title>pussy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258643040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>pussy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>pussy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pussy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156850</id>
	<title>Counter commercials</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258648020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that Verizon's commercial isn't misleading, and is pretty good. I have always liked Verizon over other cell companies. That being said, with the recent issues with the Droid camera, a good counter commercial should be someone using the iphone and the someone else using the Droid to take pictures of someone, (Of course the Droid would have a fuzzy screen) while the person posing for the picture says to the Droid phone owner, "[Sarcastically] Can you see me know?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that Verizon 's commercial is n't misleading , and is pretty good .
I have always liked Verizon over other cell companies .
That being said , with the recent issues with the Droid camera , a good counter commercial should be someone using the iphone and the someone else using the Droid to take pictures of someone , ( Of course the Droid would have a fuzzy screen ) while the person posing for the picture says to the Droid phone owner , " [ Sarcastically ] Can you see me know ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that Verizon's commercial isn't misleading, and is pretty good.
I have always liked Verizon over other cell companies.
That being said, with the recent issues with the Droid camera, a good counter commercial should be someone using the iphone and the someone else using the Droid to take pictures of someone, (Of course the Droid would have a fuzzy screen) while the person posing for the picture says to the Droid phone owner, "[Sarcastically] Can you see me know?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155790</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised?</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1258644180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it may cover more people, but its slower.  AT&amp;T seems faster here near Canada even though we don't have "3G."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it may cover more people , but its slower .
AT&amp;T seems faster here near Canada even though we do n't have " 3G .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it may cover more people, but its slower.
AT&amp;T seems faster here near Canada even though we don't have "3G.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157092</id>
	<title>Metrics</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1258648800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As nerds, and political activists, how can we promote competition in the wireless market on a metric more similar to "how fast does nytimes.com load" than "what is the maximum theoretical limit using the network?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As nerds , and political activists , how can we promote competition in the wireless market on a metric more similar to " how fast does nytimes.com load " than " what is the maximum theoretical limit using the network ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As nerds, and political activists, how can we promote competition in the wireless market on a metric more similar to "how fast does nytimes.com load" than "what is the maximum theoretical limit using the network?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30158340</id>
	<title>Re:Maps</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1258652400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't know how they do it - perhaps they simply check terrain in Google Earth and look for landscape that "shadows" a tower.</p></div></blockquote><p>They probably use software like that a friend of mine uses when installing wireless telemetry for a local water utility.  You input the tower height and antenna pattern, and the software compares that to a digital map* using a ray tracing type of process to determine signal coverage.</p><p>*By that I mean a map where the terrain information (lat, long, elevation) is stored in a database.  Google Earth doesn't store terrain information, it stores images of the terrain and displays them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how they do it - perhaps they simply check terrain in Google Earth and look for landscape that " shadows " a tower.They probably use software like that a friend of mine uses when installing wireless telemetry for a local water utility .
You input the tower height and antenna pattern , and the software compares that to a digital map * using a ray tracing type of process to determine signal coverage .
* By that I mean a map where the terrain information ( lat , long , elevation ) is stored in a database .
Google Earth does n't store terrain information , it stores images of the terrain and displays them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how they do it - perhaps they simply check terrain in Google Earth and look for landscape that "shadows" a tower.They probably use software like that a friend of mine uses when installing wireless telemetry for a local water utility.
You input the tower height and antenna pattern, and the software compares that to a digital map* using a ray tracing type of process to determine signal coverage.
*By that I mean a map where the terrain information (lat, long, elevation) is stored in a database.
Google Earth doesn't store terrain information, it stores images of the terrain and displays them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30158152</id>
	<title>Re:Maps</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258651860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone that knows mobile technology knows that maps are wildly inaccurate. Verizon's map is an out right lie, since there's thousands or tens of thousands of dead spots. Just walk around Boston and you'll see for yourself. Any fool dumb enough to believe the map hype is an idiot. About the only places where you're likely to get great signal is on the freeways and highways. Once you get into a decent size city with skyscrapers or out in the woods, chances are the signal will suck and get half a bar. Things have gotten a lot better since 2000, but it still isn't great.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone that knows mobile technology knows that maps are wildly inaccurate .
Verizon 's map is an out right lie , since there 's thousands or tens of thousands of dead spots .
Just walk around Boston and you 'll see for yourself .
Any fool dumb enough to believe the map hype is an idiot .
About the only places where you 're likely to get great signal is on the freeways and highways .
Once you get into a decent size city with skyscrapers or out in the woods , chances are the signal will suck and get half a bar .
Things have gotten a lot better since 2000 , but it still is n't great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone that knows mobile technology knows that maps are wildly inaccurate.
Verizon's map is an out right lie, since there's thousands or tens of thousands of dead spots.
Just walk around Boston and you'll see for yourself.
Any fool dumb enough to believe the map hype is an idiot.
About the only places where you're likely to get great signal is on the freeways and highways.
Once you get into a decent size city with skyscrapers or out in the woods, chances are the signal will suck and get half a bar.
Things have gotten a lot better since 2000, but it still isn't great.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155300</id>
	<title>Can you hear us now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258641660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can you hear us now?<br>
Can you hear us now?<br>
Can you hear us now?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you hear us now ?
Can you hear us now ?
Can you hear us now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you hear us now?
Can you hear us now?
Can you hear us now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30160774</id>
	<title>Verizon is wrong</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1258659840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think AT&amp;T had a case here. Verizon is talking about their 3g as roughly equivalent to AT&amp;T's EDGE. They're showing their EDGE-equivalence next to AT&amp;T's HSDPA coverage.</p><p>For what it's worth, AT&amp;T says that all their towers have EDGE - that is, their entire coverage area. And HSDPA is ridiculously fast - theoretically it can be something like 30Mbps, but I've tested it in real-life to 6Mbps. I don't think Verizon even has anything to match that.</p><p>It's a reasonable idea for an ad, because I think Verizon's coverage is generally larger than AT&amp;T's, but the mostly-full AT&amp;T map next to the fuller Verizon map wouldn't be so dramatic. And that's what they'd need to be fair.</p><p>In short, AT&amp;T wants them to compare apples to apples.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think AT&amp;T had a case here .
Verizon is talking about their 3g as roughly equivalent to AT&amp;T 's EDGE .
They 're showing their EDGE-equivalence next to AT&amp;T 's HSDPA coverage.For what it 's worth , AT&amp;T says that all their towers have EDGE - that is , their entire coverage area .
And HSDPA is ridiculously fast - theoretically it can be something like 30Mbps , but I 've tested it in real-life to 6Mbps .
I do n't think Verizon even has anything to match that.It 's a reasonable idea for an ad , because I think Verizon 's coverage is generally larger than AT&amp;T 's , but the mostly-full AT&amp;T map next to the fuller Verizon map would n't be so dramatic .
And that 's what they 'd need to be fair.In short , AT&amp;T wants them to compare apples to apples .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think AT&amp;T had a case here.
Verizon is talking about their 3g as roughly equivalent to AT&amp;T's EDGE.
They're showing their EDGE-equivalence next to AT&amp;T's HSDPA coverage.For what it's worth, AT&amp;T says that all their towers have EDGE - that is, their entire coverage area.
And HSDPA is ridiculously fast - theoretically it can be something like 30Mbps, but I've tested it in real-life to 6Mbps.
I don't think Verizon even has anything to match that.It's a reasonable idea for an ad, because I think Verizon's coverage is generally larger than AT&amp;T's, but the mostly-full AT&amp;T map next to the fuller Verizon map wouldn't be so dramatic.
And that's what they'd need to be fair.In short, AT&amp;T wants them to compare apples to apples.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157104</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258648860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you 've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard .
At no point in your rambling , incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought .
Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it .
I award you no points , and may God have mercy on your soul .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard.
At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.
Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156896</id>
	<title>Re:Damn them all</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1258648200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Canada we have stores like that... almost.</p><p>They cover the [one|two|three|three-and-a-half] carriers that service your area.  You go in and select a carrier and a phone.  Except you have to select those two together because the phones are all locked and half the networks are incompatible with the other half.</p><p>It's actually pretty darkly humorous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Canada we have stores like that... almost.They cover the [ one | two | three | three-and-a-half ] carriers that service your area .
You go in and select a carrier and a phone .
Except you have to select those two together because the phones are all locked and half the networks are incompatible with the other half.It 's actually pretty darkly humorous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Canada we have stores like that... almost.They cover the [one|two|three|three-and-a-half] carriers that service your area.
You go in and select a carrier and a phone.
Except you have to select those two together because the phones are all locked and half the networks are incompatible with the other half.It's actually pretty darkly humorous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157866</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T is the laughing stock of the industry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258650960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After the misfit toys airing I look forward to a mock courtroom where the defendant (AT&amp;T customer) allegedly used 3G data plan to coordinate a raid on santas toy shop.</p><p>After the defendants lawyer displays the 3G maps a verizion user dressed like the grinch immediatly comes forward to confess.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... fade out<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Insert clever wording about AT&amp;Ts court losses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After the misfit toys airing I look forward to a mock courtroom where the defendant ( AT&amp;T customer ) allegedly used 3G data plan to coordinate a raid on santas toy shop.After the defendants lawyer displays the 3G maps a verizion user dressed like the grinch immediatly comes forward to confess .
... fade out ...Insert clever wording about AT&amp;Ts court losses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After the misfit toys airing I look forward to a mock courtroom where the defendant (AT&amp;T customer) allegedly used 3G data plan to coordinate a raid on santas toy shop.After the defendants lawyer displays the 3G maps a verizion user dressed like the grinch immediatly comes forward to confess.
... fade out ...Insert clever wording about AT&amp;Ts court losses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156872</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, I feel for them.</title>
	<author>east coast</author>
	<datestamp>1258648080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A lot of normal users also don't understand the difference between hard drive storage and memory. Do you suggest that we have a dissertation about these differences on every product that contains either or both of these technologies? At some point consumer ignorance can no longer be an excuse. How can an industry really decide how far they have to go in explaining a product before they've done a sufficient enough of a job as to avoid lawsuits?<br> <br>As far as I'm concerned, as long as it's apples to apples I have no problem with these comparisons. If I went to buy a product and I didn't understand the terminology in a comparison chart I would take the time to understand what exactly I'm buying into. Not just run off and decided that whatever they were trying to push off on me was gooder just because some chart said so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of normal users also do n't understand the difference between hard drive storage and memory .
Do you suggest that we have a dissertation about these differences on every product that contains either or both of these technologies ?
At some point consumer ignorance can no longer be an excuse .
How can an industry really decide how far they have to go in explaining a product before they 've done a sufficient enough of a job as to avoid lawsuits ?
As far as I 'm concerned , as long as it 's apples to apples I have no problem with these comparisons .
If I went to buy a product and I did n't understand the terminology in a comparison chart I would take the time to understand what exactly I 'm buying into .
Not just run off and decided that whatever they were trying to push off on me was gooder just because some chart said so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of normal users also don't understand the difference between hard drive storage and memory.
Do you suggest that we have a dissertation about these differences on every product that contains either or both of these technologies?
At some point consumer ignorance can no longer be an excuse.
How can an industry really decide how far they have to go in explaining a product before they've done a sufficient enough of a job as to avoid lawsuits?
As far as I'm concerned, as long as it's apples to apples I have no problem with these comparisons.
If I went to buy a product and I didn't understand the terminology in a comparison chart I would take the time to understand what exactly I'm buying into.
Not just run off and decided that whatever they were trying to push off on me was gooder just because some chart said so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156458</id>
	<title>Ads?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258646760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone have a link to the ads?  As is common with lawsuits, I want to see why AT&amp;T is suing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone have a link to the ads ?
As is common with lawsuits , I want to see why AT&amp;T is suing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone have a link to the ads?
As is common with lawsuits, I want to see why AT&amp;T is suing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30158888</id>
	<title>Re:Misleading Ads Against the Rules?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1258654080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Don't "misleading" and "advertising" go hand in hand?</i></p><p>AFAIK, only here in the US. The Brits have the ASA that can take down misleading or offensive ads. There, a consumer can get an ad taken down, here you have to be the competetitor. Personally, I wouldn't mind false advertising laws with teeth; ads would actually be useful enough to pay attention to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't " misleading " and " advertising " go hand in hand ? AFAIK , only here in the US .
The Brits have the ASA that can take down misleading or offensive ads .
There , a consumer can get an ad taken down , here you have to be the competetitor .
Personally , I would n't mind false advertising laws with teeth ; ads would actually be useful enough to pay attention to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't "misleading" and "advertising" go hand in hand?AFAIK, only here in the US.
The Brits have the ASA that can take down misleading or offensive ads.
There, a consumer can get an ad taken down, here you have to be the competetitor.
Personally, I wouldn't mind false advertising laws with teeth; ads would actually be useful enough to pay attention to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155510</id>
	<title>Nope</title>
	<author>travdaddy</author>
	<datestamp>1258642740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's not a restraining order for that!</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's not a restraining order for that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's not a restraining order for that!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30164504</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, I feel for them.</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1258628460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Truth in advertising, IMHO, would be served if Verizon was required to put a tagline to the effect that "Note: Normal cellular calling coverage may extend outside the 3G-covered area".</p></div></blockquote><p>They didn't have that initially, but after ATT made some growling noises, they put it under the map in tiny letters.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Truth in advertising , IMHO , would be served if Verizon was required to put a tagline to the effect that " Note : Normal cellular calling coverage may extend outside the 3G-covered area " .They did n't have that initially , but after ATT made some growling noises , they put it under the map in tiny letters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Truth in advertising, IMHO, would be served if Verizon was required to put a tagline to the effect that "Note: Normal cellular calling coverage may extend outside the 3G-covered area".They didn't have that initially, but after ATT made some growling noises, they put it under the map in tiny letters.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156592</id>
	<title>Re:Maps</title>
	<author>genghisjahn</author>
	<datestamp>1258647240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stephen King wrote about a Dead Zone is New England a long time ago.  The guy was/is a visionary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stephen King wrote about a Dead Zone is New England a long time ago .
The guy was/is a visionary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stephen King wrote about a Dead Zone is New England a long time ago.
The guy was/is a visionary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155500</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T is the laughing stock of the industry</title>
	<author>EraserMouseMan</author>
	<datestamp>1258642680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>AT&amp;T is essentially putting the spotlight on it's weakest link by drawing so much attention to this trial. Now everybody will be educated on <i>exactly</i> what's wrong with AT&amp;T today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T is essentially putting the spotlight on it 's weakest link by drawing so much attention to this trial .
Now everybody will be educated on exactly what 's wrong with AT&amp;T today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T is essentially putting the spotlight on it's weakest link by drawing so much attention to this trial.
Now everybody will be educated on exactly what's wrong with AT&amp;T today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30167682</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T fail... but so does Apple?</title>
	<author>amazingxkcd</author>
	<datestamp>1258647300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with AT&amp;T is the same problem with Apple. AT&amp;T does not want to have competition and knowing that they are losing to Verizon Wireless because they blew all their cash on iphones, which is clearly shown as failing in other Slashdot reports goes to show that AT&amp;T have adjusted to the idea that they dominated the market with their crappy iphone, whereas Veirzon actually did something appealing to us by making a smart phone Android that will be open source, meaning that people can develop apps their way, for which is nice. We also have to take in account that Verizon is US based and that they heavily market here in the US. So, I wouldn't be surprised if the Map of 3G coverages is true, knowing that AT&amp;T is not just marketing here in US, but around the world. They do have a big market here, but i would like to see Verizon take over the market with the Android, for which i cant wait to develop apps for.

Now, how does this relate with Apple? We see clearly that Apple has failed with their close sourcing the iPhone, having stupid approval processes for the apps, for which everyone hates, and that they are making deals with companies that can't handle with the fact that their coverages are crap. The best move for AT&amp;T right now is to drop the case, say that Verizon is right, and start to focus on what the customers actually want. Apple needs to change their ideals that their products are the best, cause they're not. Apple needs to make computers that can actually play games that Windows OSes can and to reduce their outrageous prices for some mac which doesn't have that good hardware. For the hand-held items, please make them open-source and admit that controlling the market on apps will not work in the long run. That would be a form of communism as seen in China, with major control all just because you like to control the cash.

I will laugh about the stupidness of AT&amp;T, though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with AT&amp;T is the same problem with Apple .
AT&amp;T does not want to have competition and knowing that they are losing to Verizon Wireless because they blew all their cash on iphones , which is clearly shown as failing in other Slashdot reports goes to show that AT&amp;T have adjusted to the idea that they dominated the market with their crappy iphone , whereas Veirzon actually did something appealing to us by making a smart phone Android that will be open source , meaning that people can develop apps their way , for which is nice .
We also have to take in account that Verizon is US based and that they heavily market here in the US .
So , I would n't be surprised if the Map of 3G coverages is true , knowing that AT&amp;T is not just marketing here in US , but around the world .
They do have a big market here , but i would like to see Verizon take over the market with the Android , for which i cant wait to develop apps for .
Now , how does this relate with Apple ?
We see clearly that Apple has failed with their close sourcing the iPhone , having stupid approval processes for the apps , for which everyone hates , and that they are making deals with companies that ca n't handle with the fact that their coverages are crap .
The best move for AT&amp;T right now is to drop the case , say that Verizon is right , and start to focus on what the customers actually want .
Apple needs to change their ideals that their products are the best , cause they 're not .
Apple needs to make computers that can actually play games that Windows OSes can and to reduce their outrageous prices for some mac which does n't have that good hardware .
For the hand-held items , please make them open-source and admit that controlling the market on apps will not work in the long run .
That would be a form of communism as seen in China , with major control all just because you like to control the cash .
I will laugh about the stupidness of AT&amp;T , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with AT&amp;T is the same problem with Apple.
AT&amp;T does not want to have competition and knowing that they are losing to Verizon Wireless because they blew all their cash on iphones, which is clearly shown as failing in other Slashdot reports goes to show that AT&amp;T have adjusted to the idea that they dominated the market with their crappy iphone, whereas Veirzon actually did something appealing to us by making a smart phone Android that will be open source, meaning that people can develop apps their way, for which is nice.
We also have to take in account that Verizon is US based and that they heavily market here in the US.
So, I wouldn't be surprised if the Map of 3G coverages is true, knowing that AT&amp;T is not just marketing here in US, but around the world.
They do have a big market here, but i would like to see Verizon take over the market with the Android, for which i cant wait to develop apps for.
Now, how does this relate with Apple?
We see clearly that Apple has failed with their close sourcing the iPhone, having stupid approval processes for the apps, for which everyone hates, and that they are making deals with companies that can't handle with the fact that their coverages are crap.
The best move for AT&amp;T right now is to drop the case, say that Verizon is right, and start to focus on what the customers actually want.
Apple needs to change their ideals that their products are the best, cause they're not.
Apple needs to make computers that can actually play games that Windows OSes can and to reduce their outrageous prices for some mac which doesn't have that good hardware.
For the hand-held items, please make them open-source and admit that controlling the market on apps will not work in the long run.
That would be a form of communism as seen in China, with major control all just because you like to control the cash.
I will laugh about the stupidness of AT&amp;T, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30165298</id>
	<title>Re:Maps</title>
	<author>zeropointburn</author>
	<datestamp>1258631640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(This post contains some generalizations; RF engineers are welcome to correct me on specifics.)<br>In order to put up a transmitter, the FCC requires full transmission surveys. These can be theoretical, but are typically produced by a specialist engineering company under contract using full topography data. The resulting map of signal levels would be available to any carrier, as it is a part of their application to construct the transmitter in the first place. Some types of transmitter (especially for AM/FM broadcast) also require some number of sample readings to confirm the accuracy of the original projection and avoid any interference with nearby transmitters. These composite maps (theory plus corroborating data points) would of course also be available to the carrier.<br>Verizon has this data, they simply choose not to advertise it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( This post contains some generalizations ; RF engineers are welcome to correct me on specifics .
) In order to put up a transmitter , the FCC requires full transmission surveys .
These can be theoretical , but are typically produced by a specialist engineering company under contract using full topography data .
The resulting map of signal levels would be available to any carrier , as it is a part of their application to construct the transmitter in the first place .
Some types of transmitter ( especially for AM/FM broadcast ) also require some number of sample readings to confirm the accuracy of the original projection and avoid any interference with nearby transmitters .
These composite maps ( theory plus corroborating data points ) would of course also be available to the carrier.Verizon has this data , they simply choose not to advertise it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(This post contains some generalizations; RF engineers are welcome to correct me on specifics.
)In order to put up a transmitter, the FCC requires full transmission surveys.
These can be theoretical, but are typically produced by a specialist engineering company under contract using full topography data.
The resulting map of signal levels would be available to any carrier, as it is a part of their application to construct the transmitter in the first place.
Some types of transmitter (especially for AM/FM broadcast) also require some number of sample readings to confirm the accuracy of the original projection and avoid any interference with nearby transmitters.
These composite maps (theory plus corroborating data points) would of course also be available to the carrier.Verizon has this data, they simply choose not to advertise it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156096</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258645380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The next time I'm in the middle of Nebraska and I can't look at Facebook quite as quickly, I'll sure wish I had switched to Verizon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The next time I 'm in the middle of Nebraska and I ca n't look at Facebook quite as quickly , I 'll sure wish I had switched to Verizon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The next time I'm in the middle of Nebraska and I can't look at Facebook quite as quickly, I'll sure wish I had switched to Verizon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30159806</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, I feel for them.</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1258656900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, there has to be a line somewhere. I just felt that the difference between a non-rechargeable battery and a rechargeable one was significant enough that it should have made notable mention, more notable than the presence or absence of a three-letter word that most people don't know the meaning of anyway.</p><p>You'd expect a laptop battery, a cellphone battery, a car battery, etc. to be a rechargeable battery. What makes a "digital camera battery" any different, I ask?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , there has to be a line somewhere .
I just felt that the difference between a non-rechargeable battery and a rechargeable one was significant enough that it should have made notable mention , more notable than the presence or absence of a three-letter word that most people do n't know the meaning of anyway.You 'd expect a laptop battery , a cellphone battery , a car battery , etc .
to be a rechargeable battery .
What makes a " digital camera battery " any different , I ask ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, there has to be a line somewhere.
I just felt that the difference between a non-rechargeable battery and a rechargeable one was significant enough that it should have made notable mention, more notable than the presence or absence of a three-letter word that most people don't know the meaning of anyway.You'd expect a laptop battery, a cellphone battery, a car battery, etc.
to be a rechargeable battery.
What makes a "digital camera battery" any different, I ask?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156872</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157598</id>
	<title>Re:Who needs that much 3G coverage?</title>
	<author>Logical Zebra</author>
	<datestamp>1258650180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got an iPhone, and I honestly don't care too much about 3G coverage.  If I want to do bandwidth-intensive operations, I'll use WiFi, which the iPhone supports.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got an iPhone , and I honestly do n't care too much about 3G coverage .
If I want to do bandwidth-intensive operations , I 'll use WiFi , which the iPhone supports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got an iPhone, and I honestly don't care too much about 3G coverage.
If I want to do bandwidth-intensive operations, I'll use WiFi, which the iPhone supports.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155350</id>
	<title>Surprised?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258641960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is anyone surprised at this result? Verizon advertises its better 3G coverage. It's true. Simple as that. No more debate necessary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is anyone surprised at this result ?
Verizon advertises its better 3G coverage .
It 's true .
Simple as that .
No more debate necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is anyone surprised at this result?
Verizon advertises its better 3G coverage.
It's true.
Simple as that.
No more debate necessary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156530</id>
	<title>Re:Maps</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258647060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't read your complete post, but you make an excellent point. Why not make carriers PROVE signal strength in areas they claim coverage. Actually go out and measure the level (and speed) of their network. This process would have to be vetted prior to publishing or advertising coverage. I think we ALL might be surprised (including the carriers) by the actual coverage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't read your complete post , but you make an excellent point .
Why not make carriers PROVE signal strength in areas they claim coverage .
Actually go out and measure the level ( and speed ) of their network .
This process would have to be vetted prior to publishing or advertising coverage .
I think we ALL might be surprised ( including the carriers ) by the actual coverage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't read your complete post, but you make an excellent point.
Why not make carriers PROVE signal strength in areas they claim coverage.
Actually go out and measure the level (and speed) of their network.
This process would have to be vetted prior to publishing or advertising coverage.
I think we ALL might be surprised (including the carriers) by the actual coverage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157102</id>
	<title>Re:Truth In Advertising</title>
	<author>mu51c10rd</author>
	<datestamp>1258648800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I think Sprint advertises the "most reliable", Verizon "the widest coverage", and ATT "the fastest" or something like that. Seems they are all touting something similar, just slightly different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I think Sprint advertises the " most reliable " , Verizon " the widest coverage " , and ATT " the fastest " or something like that .
Seems they are all touting something similar , just slightly different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I think Sprint advertises the "most reliable", Verizon "the widest coverage", and ATT "the fastest" or something like that.
Seems they are all touting something similar, just slightly different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155608</id>
	<title>Re:Surprised?</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1258643280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the real issue of the lawsuit as it parodies the iPhones "There is an App for that" commercials.  But they can't do anything legally about parodies,  but the fact that Verizon directly attacked AT&amp;T and used still misleading truth, as it only showed 3G coverage which Verizon does have better service area.  But it is different then from voice service or even other formats for digital transmission such as EDGE. Does mislead the customer to think if they go with AT&amp;T that they will have a lot more places where their iPhone just won't work. So that is where AT&amp;T had its chance.  But I think for the most part they just hated Verizon parody of the iPhone adds as Apple and AT&amp;T probably spent a lot of money for creating there is an App for that commericals and Verizon just stole their catch phrase and made it for their company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the real issue of the lawsuit as it parodies the iPhones " There is an App for that " commercials .
But they ca n't do anything legally about parodies , but the fact that Verizon directly attacked AT&amp;T and used still misleading truth , as it only showed 3G coverage which Verizon does have better service area .
But it is different then from voice service or even other formats for digital transmission such as EDGE .
Does mislead the customer to think if they go with AT&amp;T that they will have a lot more places where their iPhone just wo n't work .
So that is where AT&amp;T had its chance .
But I think for the most part they just hated Verizon parody of the iPhone adds as Apple and AT&amp;T probably spent a lot of money for creating there is an App for that commericals and Verizon just stole their catch phrase and made it for their company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the real issue of the lawsuit as it parodies the iPhones "There is an App for that" commercials.
But they can't do anything legally about parodies,  but the fact that Verizon directly attacked AT&amp;T and used still misleading truth, as it only showed 3G coverage which Verizon does have better service area.
But it is different then from voice service or even other formats for digital transmission such as EDGE.
Does mislead the customer to think if they go with AT&amp;T that they will have a lot more places where their iPhone just won't work.
So that is where AT&amp;T had its chance.
But I think for the most part they just hated Verizon parody of the iPhone adds as Apple and AT&amp;T probably spent a lot of money for creating there is an App for that commericals and Verizon just stole their catch phrase and made it for their company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30158190</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T is the laughing stock of the industry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258651920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AT&amp;T probably would've been better off spending the millions of dollars in legal fees on their infrastructure instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T probably would 've been better off spending the millions of dollars in legal fees on their infrastructure instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T probably would've been better off spending the millions of dollars in legal fees on their infrastructure instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30158456</id>
	<title>Sue me next</title>
	<author>tuxgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1258652760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have the regular AT&amp;T plan on my blackberry, nothing special<br>It irks me when I can't make a call when others next to me, using different providers can<br>AT&amp;T sucks! As soon as my contract is up, I'll be looking for a different provider</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have the regular AT&amp;T plan on my blackberry , nothing specialIt irks me when I ca n't make a call when others next to me , using different providers canAT&amp;T sucks !
As soon as my contract is up , I 'll be looking for a different provider</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have the regular AT&amp;T plan on my blackberry, nothing specialIt irks me when I can't make a call when others next to me, using different providers canAT&amp;T sucks!
As soon as my contract is up, I'll be looking for a different provider</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155480</id>
	<title>My wish...</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1258642560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not having read anything about the case, and I know it can't happen, but just based on how ethical the slashdot comments make AT&amp;T and Verizon appear to be...</p><p>Ahem.</p><p>I hope they <b>both</b> lose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not having read anything about the case , and I know it ca n't happen , but just based on how ethical the slashdot comments make AT&amp;T and Verizon appear to be...Ahem.I hope they both lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not having read anything about the case, and I know it can't happen, but just based on how ethical the slashdot comments make AT&amp;T and Verizon appear to be...Ahem.I hope they both lose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30159126</id>
	<title>Misleading</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258654800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AT&amp;T should be more worried about their own reps misleading customers because of their incompetence</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T should be more worried about their own reps misleading customers because of their incompetence</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T should be more worried about their own reps misleading customers because of their incompetence</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30163144</id>
	<title>Re:Maps</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258624560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google Earth actually does have terrain information.  I don't suppose it's accurate enough to base cellular coverage decisions off of, but it's there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Earth actually does have terrain information .
I do n't suppose it 's accurate enough to base cellular coverage decisions off of , but it 's there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Earth actually does have terrain information.
I don't suppose it's accurate enough to base cellular coverage decisions off of, but it's there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30158340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155826</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T is the laughing stock of the industry</title>
	<author>Aklyon</author>
	<datestamp>1258644300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Muahahahahahaha!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Muahahahahahaha !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Muahahahahahaha!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30158128</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, I feel for them.</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1258651800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yeah, I made an uninformed decision when I bought the camera, but I felt that Kodak (yes, I'll name names) deliberately tried to leave it confusing so that people would do exactly as I did.</p></div></blockquote><p>I see no confusion whatsoever - the package didn't say "rechargeable battery", and unsurprisingly didn't contain a rechargeable battery.  It's not Kodak's fault you thought you were getting something for nothing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I made an uninformed decision when I bought the camera , but I felt that Kodak ( yes , I 'll name names ) deliberately tried to leave it confusing so that people would do exactly as I did.I see no confusion whatsoever - the package did n't say " rechargeable battery " , and unsurprisingly did n't contain a rechargeable battery .
It 's not Kodak 's fault you thought you were getting something for nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I made an uninformed decision when I bought the camera, but I felt that Kodak (yes, I'll name names) deliberately tried to leave it confusing so that people would do exactly as I did.I see no confusion whatsoever - the package didn't say "rechargeable battery", and unsurprisingly didn't contain a rechargeable battery.
It's not Kodak's fault you thought you were getting something for nothing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155372</id>
	<title>Now to get rid of noncompetes</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1258642080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The unfortunate problem with a deregulated economic system is that, companies want to use deregulation but the power to enforce contracts as a way to not have to compete. Libertarian ideas about competition are just as utopian as socialist ideas about cooperation simply because the smartest thing for a company to do is to not have to spend money and take the sort of risks needed to actually compete.  They confine themselves to areas they can patent, they make principals sign non-competes and non-disclosures, obfuscate the relationship between pricing and product all so they can minimize how much they have to actually compete.  IF we are to say that companies are to have the means of giving themselves monopolies, then it is fair for liberals to demand that companies accept certain social obligations in exchange for that <i>letters patent</i> effectively granted by the government.  Only if companies do not accept the government's help in reducing competition, can they morally make the claim that they are free market and should not be interfered with by the government.  Only as much as conservatives demand companies have less monopoly powers can they demand that the government have less power over the companies too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The unfortunate problem with a deregulated economic system is that , companies want to use deregulation but the power to enforce contracts as a way to not have to compete .
Libertarian ideas about competition are just as utopian as socialist ideas about cooperation simply because the smartest thing for a company to do is to not have to spend money and take the sort of risks needed to actually compete .
They confine themselves to areas they can patent , they make principals sign non-competes and non-disclosures , obfuscate the relationship between pricing and product all so they can minimize how much they have to actually compete .
IF we are to say that companies are to have the means of giving themselves monopolies , then it is fair for liberals to demand that companies accept certain social obligations in exchange for that letters patent effectively granted by the government .
Only if companies do not accept the government 's help in reducing competition , can they morally make the claim that they are free market and should not be interfered with by the government .
Only as much as conservatives demand companies have less monopoly powers can they demand that the government have less power over the companies too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The unfortunate problem with a deregulated economic system is that, companies want to use deregulation but the power to enforce contracts as a way to not have to compete.
Libertarian ideas about competition are just as utopian as socialist ideas about cooperation simply because the smartest thing for a company to do is to not have to spend money and take the sort of risks needed to actually compete.
They confine themselves to areas they can patent, they make principals sign non-competes and non-disclosures, obfuscate the relationship between pricing and product all so they can minimize how much they have to actually compete.
IF we are to say that companies are to have the means of giving themselves monopolies, then it is fair for liberals to demand that companies accept certain social obligations in exchange for that letters patent effectively granted by the government.
Only if companies do not accept the government's help in reducing competition, can they morally make the claim that they are free market and should not be interfered with by the government.
Only as much as conservatives demand companies have less monopoly powers can they demand that the government have less power over the companies too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30161352</id>
	<title>Re:Maps</title>
	<author>Slashdot Parent</author>
	<datestamp>1258661820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think there is a limitation to how much you can trust those maps.  They can't possibly account for what type of structure you're in, either.</p><p>For instance, I am currently in an office building in the middle of a major city.  AT&amp;T's map says I am currently in their "best" coverage, but please let me assure you that there is no AT&amp;T service in my building.  And it's not like I work inside a bank vault, because my Palm Pre on Sprint gets full signal, and my old Verizon phone got full signal as well.</p><p>The same is true at my house, which is in a first-ring suburb of the same major city.  Perfect Verizon and Sprint coverage (my wife has Verizon) and no AT&amp;T (but T-Mo works fine.)</p><p>Smarter people than me could debate the accuracy of the "There's a map for that" commercials, but my real world observation is that AT&amp;T's coverage simply sucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there is a limitation to how much you can trust those maps .
They ca n't possibly account for what type of structure you 're in , either.For instance , I am currently in an office building in the middle of a major city .
AT&amp;T 's map says I am currently in their " best " coverage , but please let me assure you that there is no AT&amp;T service in my building .
And it 's not like I work inside a bank vault , because my Palm Pre on Sprint gets full signal , and my old Verizon phone got full signal as well.The same is true at my house , which is in a first-ring suburb of the same major city .
Perfect Verizon and Sprint coverage ( my wife has Verizon ) and no AT&amp;T ( but T-Mo works fine .
) Smarter people than me could debate the accuracy of the " There 's a map for that " commercials , but my real world observation is that AT&amp;T 's coverage simply sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there is a limitation to how much you can trust those maps.
They can't possibly account for what type of structure you're in, either.For instance, I am currently in an office building in the middle of a major city.
AT&amp;T's map says I am currently in their "best" coverage, but please let me assure you that there is no AT&amp;T service in my building.
And it's not like I work inside a bank vault, because my Palm Pre on Sprint gets full signal, and my old Verizon phone got full signal as well.The same is true at my house, which is in a first-ring suburb of the same major city.
Perfect Verizon and Sprint coverage (my wife has Verizon) and no AT&amp;T (but T-Mo works fine.
)Smarter people than me could debate the accuracy of the "There's a map for that" commercials, but my real world observation is that AT&amp;T's coverage simply sucks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30160748</id>
	<title>Re:Damn them all</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1258659720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have it now. Go to any "dollat store" (Family Dollar, Dollar General, etc) and you have half a dozen choices of phones you pay by the minute, with the main carriers (18T, T-Mobile, Cingular etc) plus minute phone only brands (Net 10, etc). Buy the phone, buy the minutes, done. No phone bill either, just buy more minutes at any dollar store, convinience store, or gas station. No lock in, no contract, no muss, no fuss. And no way for the government to track you if you pay with greenbacks.</p><p>I had to go to Best Buy for my Boost phone, but I can pay my monthly fifty bucks at any place you buy minutes from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have it now .
Go to any " dollat store " ( Family Dollar , Dollar General , etc ) and you have half a dozen choices of phones you pay by the minute , with the main carriers ( 18T , T-Mobile , Cingular etc ) plus minute phone only brands ( Net 10 , etc ) .
Buy the phone , buy the minutes , done .
No phone bill either , just buy more minutes at any dollar store , convinience store , or gas station .
No lock in , no contract , no muss , no fuss .
And no way for the government to track you if you pay with greenbacks.I had to go to Best Buy for my Boost phone , but I can pay my monthly fifty bucks at any place you buy minutes from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have it now.
Go to any "dollat store" (Family Dollar, Dollar General, etc) and you have half a dozen choices of phones you pay by the minute, with the main carriers (18T, T-Mobile, Cingular etc) plus minute phone only brands (Net 10, etc).
Buy the phone, buy the minutes, done.
No phone bill either, just buy more minutes at any dollar store, convinience store, or gas station.
No lock in, no contract, no muss, no fuss.
And no way for the government to track you if you pay with greenbacks.I had to go to Best Buy for my Boost phone, but I can pay my monthly fifty bucks at any place you buy minutes from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30158208</id>
	<title>What do people actually believe?</title>
	<author>pcraven</author>
	<datestamp>1258651980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I figured most people would understand, but I wasn't sure. So I polled a college class of mine, and 17 out of 17 students misunderstood the add. All students thought the maps indicated total coverage, not 2G vs 3G. And to top it off, no one really knew what 3G was anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I figured most people would understand , but I was n't sure .
So I polled a college class of mine , and 17 out of 17 students misunderstood the add .
All students thought the maps indicated total coverage , not 2G vs 3G .
And to top it off , no one really knew what 3G was anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I figured most people would understand, but I wasn't sure.
So I polled a college class of mine, and 17 out of 17 students misunderstood the add.
All students thought the maps indicated total coverage, not 2G vs 3G.
And to top it off, no one really knew what 3G was anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155334</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T is the laughing stock of the industry</title>
	<author>stox</author>
	<datestamp>1258641840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They were insane to bring this to court. Verizon could not have paid for better advertising. This is going to go down in the book as one of the stupidest moves in business history.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were insane to bring this to court .
Verizon could not have paid for better advertising .
This is going to go down in the book as one of the stupidest moves in business history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were insane to bring this to court.
Verizon could not have paid for better advertising.
This is going to go down in the book as one of the stupidest moves in business history.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155718</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T vs Verizon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258643880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>That's a bit like Goliath fighting Goliath. Where the hell is David?
</i> <br>
<br>
He's probably cleaning up the two clay lumps of crap that the Goliaths left behind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a bit like Goliath fighting Goliath .
Where the hell is David ?
He 's probably cleaning up the two clay lumps of crap that the Goliaths left behind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a bit like Goliath fighting Goliath.
Where the hell is David?
He's probably cleaning up the two clay lumps of crap that the Goliaths left behind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30158950</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T is the laughing stock of the industry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258654260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AT&amp;T should be more worried about its own reps misleading customers because of their incompetence</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T should be more worried about its own reps misleading customers because of their incompetence</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T should be more worried about its own reps misleading customers because of their incompetence</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30161918</id>
	<title>Perhaps a namechange?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258663560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AT&amp;T needs a way to confuse their rivals...and customers.  Perhaps AT&amp;T needs a name-change...again.  Eventually, they'll run out of names.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T needs a way to confuse their rivals...and customers .
Perhaps AT&amp;T needs a name-change...again .
Eventually , they 'll run out of names .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T needs a way to confuse their rivals...and customers.
Perhaps AT&amp;T needs a name-change...again.
Eventually, they'll run out of names.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155418</id>
	<title>Misleading Ads Against the Rules?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258642260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do AT&amp;T really think they can win a case where their only argument is "Verizon has misleading advertising?" Don't "misleading" and "advertising" go hand in hand? Since when is it supposed to be objective?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do AT&amp;T really think they can win a case where their only argument is " Verizon has misleading advertising ?
" Do n't " misleading " and " advertising " go hand in hand ?
Since when is it supposed to be objective ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do AT&amp;T really think they can win a case where their only argument is "Verizon has misleading advertising?
" Don't "misleading" and "advertising" go hand in hand?
Since when is it supposed to be objective?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156012</id>
	<title>Booo!</title>
	<author>DigitalReverend</author>
	<datestamp>1258645080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hissssssssssssssss</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hissssssssssssssss</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hissssssssssssssss</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157020</id>
	<title>Re:Now to get rid of noncompetes</title>
	<author>englishknnigits</author>
	<datestamp>1258648620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are correct in that a free market cannot exist in the presence of monopolies but that does not mean they need to be regulated.  It means they need to be broken up.

About competition, you really don't think AT&amp;T and Verizon are competing right now or that AT&amp;T + iPhone didn't drive Verizon to partner with other companies to produce Droid? o.O   One of us does not know what the word competition means.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are correct in that a free market can not exist in the presence of monopolies but that does not mean they need to be regulated .
It means they need to be broken up .
About competition , you really do n't think AT&amp;T and Verizon are competing right now or that AT&amp;T + iPhone did n't drive Verizon to partner with other companies to produce Droid ?
o.O One of us does not know what the word competition means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are correct in that a free market cannot exist in the presence of monopolies but that does not mean they need to be regulated.
It means they need to be broken up.
About competition, you really don't think AT&amp;T and Verizon are competing right now or that AT&amp;T + iPhone didn't drive Verizon to partner with other companies to produce Droid?
o.O   One of us does not know what the word competition means.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155638</id>
	<title>Re:Truth In Advertising</title>
	<author>Mr. Esterhouse</author>
	<datestamp>1258643460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Both are true", sorry for the bad grammar.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Both are true " , sorry for the bad grammar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Both are true", sorry for the bad grammar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156210</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T is the laughing stock of the industry</title>
	<author>Vohar</author>
	<datestamp>1258645740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No kidding. Most people in my town (in Northeast Louisiana) thought we had no 3G coverage at all until AT&amp;T brought attention to this ad. I know several people who have picked up new phones as a result, and several more who are regretting their iPhones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No kidding .
Most people in my town ( in Northeast Louisiana ) thought we had no 3G coverage at all until AT&amp;T brought attention to this ad .
I know several people who have picked up new phones as a result , and several more who are regretting their iPhones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No kidding.
Most people in my town (in Northeast Louisiana) thought we had no 3G coverage at all until AT&amp;T brought attention to this ad.
I know several people who have picked up new phones as a result, and several more who are regretting their iPhones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30159670</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, I feel for them.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258656600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In fairness, Duracell and Energizer both offer Lithium batteries for cameras, as disposables.  Ni-Cd and Li-Ion are both known for being rechargeables (and have been around for most of the decade).  Lithium disposables are just supposed to have a bit more punch than run-of-the-mill batteries.</p><p>IIRC, even that tiny, flat battery that powers your computer bios is Lithium.  I dont see how any of this is misleading once people understand what the buzzwords are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fairness , Duracell and Energizer both offer Lithium batteries for cameras , as disposables .
Ni-Cd and Li-Ion are both known for being rechargeables ( and have been around for most of the decade ) .
Lithium disposables are just supposed to have a bit more punch than run-of-the-mill batteries.IIRC , even that tiny , flat battery that powers your computer bios is Lithium .
I dont see how any of this is misleading once people understand what the buzzwords are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fairness, Duracell and Energizer both offer Lithium batteries for cameras, as disposables.
Ni-Cd and Li-Ion are both known for being rechargeables (and have been around for most of the decade).
Lithium disposables are just supposed to have a bit more punch than run-of-the-mill batteries.IIRC, even that tiny, flat battery that powers your computer bios is Lithium.
I dont see how any of this is misleading once people understand what the buzzwords are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157472</id>
	<title>Re:Now to get rid of noncompetes</title>
	<author>Hadlock</author>
	<datestamp>1258649880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most cell carriers change at least one part of their contract (i.e. sms, mms fees) at least once a year. If you're at all aware, you can opt out of your contract based on the modification of the contract when they make these changes. T-Mobile upped their fees back in June or so of this year; a bunch of people I knew on T-Mobile jumped ship for the iPhone wagon with no early termination fees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most cell carriers change at least one part of their contract ( i.e .
sms , mms fees ) at least once a year .
If you 're at all aware , you can opt out of your contract based on the modification of the contract when they make these changes .
T-Mobile upped their fees back in June or so of this year ; a bunch of people I knew on T-Mobile jumped ship for the iPhone wagon with no early termination fees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most cell carriers change at least one part of their contract (i.e.
sms, mms fees) at least once a year.
If you're at all aware, you can opt out of your contract based on the modification of the contract when they make these changes.
T-Mobile upped their fees back in June or so of this year; a bunch of people I knew on T-Mobile jumped ship for the iPhone wagon with no early termination fees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30159938</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, I feel for them.</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1258657260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>P.S., in case anybody out there has a Kodak... and didn't already know (doubtful, I think)...</p><p>The Kodak EasyShare software is pants. Don't install it (or feel free to uninstall it, if you had already installed it). Your computer will connect to your camera just fine without it &ndash; or better yet, use a card reader and get the files off the card that way. If you want a photo manager, install Picasa.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>P.S. , in case anybody out there has a Kodak... and did n't already know ( doubtful , I think ) ...The Kodak EasyShare software is pants .
Do n't install it ( or feel free to uninstall it , if you had already installed it ) .
Your computer will connect to your camera just fine without it    or better yet , use a card reader and get the files off the card that way .
If you want a photo manager , install Picasa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>P.S., in case anybody out there has a Kodak... and didn't already know (doubtful, I think)...The Kodak EasyShare software is pants.
Don't install it (or feel free to uninstall it, if you had already installed it).
Your computer will connect to your camera just fine without it – or better yet, use a card reader and get the files off the card that way.
If you want a photo manager, install Picasa.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155436</id>
	<title>Truth In Advertising</title>
	<author>pipboy9999</author>
	<datestamp>1258642320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a little off topic, but if there is one industry that desperately needs some Truth In Advertising laws enforced, its the wireless industry. I don't know why AT&amp;T is so pissed. All the major carriers play up the smallest advantage they have over competitors as 'THE' deciding factor in who is the best carrier. How can Sprint AT&amp;T and Verizon all have the best 3G networks like they each claim in their commercials?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a little off topic , but if there is one industry that desperately needs some Truth In Advertising laws enforced , its the wireless industry .
I do n't know why AT&amp;T is so pissed .
All the major carriers play up the smallest advantage they have over competitors as 'THE ' deciding factor in who is the best carrier .
How can Sprint AT&amp;T and Verizon all have the best 3G networks like they each claim in their commercials ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a little off topic, but if there is one industry that desperately needs some Truth In Advertising laws enforced, its the wireless industry.
I don't know why AT&amp;T is so pissed.
All the major carriers play up the smallest advantage they have over competitors as 'THE' deciding factor in who is the best carrier.
How can Sprint AT&amp;T and Verizon all have the best 3G networks like they each claim in their commercials?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30159296</id>
	<title>Amanda Seyfried/Julianne Moore love scene?  Check!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258655340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Verizon's ads <b>do mislead consumers</b> by deliberately confusing "area" of coverage with respect to population with area of coverage with respect to square miles.</p><p>Much of Verizon's "much greater" coverage is desert and farmland and very low-population areas.  They do indicate so in the fine print of the ads, but I'm sure they'd be "Shocked!  Shocked!" to find out the average viewer thought they meant percent of actual population covered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Verizon 's ads do mislead consumers by deliberately confusing " area " of coverage with respect to population with area of coverage with respect to square miles.Much of Verizon 's " much greater " coverage is desert and farmland and very low-population areas .
They do indicate so in the fine print of the ads , but I 'm sure they 'd be " Shocked !
Shocked ! " to find out the average viewer thought they meant percent of actual population covered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Verizon's ads do mislead consumers by deliberately confusing "area" of coverage with respect to population with area of coverage with respect to square miles.Much of Verizon's "much greater" coverage is desert and farmland and very low-population areas.
They do indicate so in the fine print of the ads, but I'm sure they'd be "Shocked!
Shocked!" to find out the average viewer thought they meant percent of actual population covered.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155426</id>
	<title>Effective ads</title>
	<author>intx13</author>
	<datestamp>1258642260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see these ads a lot; they run often during college football games here in Florida.  I have AT&amp;T on a non-3G phone so it doesn't really apply to me, but if I were in the market for a 3G phone I'd definitely want to follow-up on those ads.
<br> <br>

I don't think they're misleading - they say "if you want to know why your friend's 3G coverage is so spotty" (or something along those lines, with 3G mentioned every time) and the examples given are all 3G-specific (high-bandwidth applications).  Besides, who advertises about the breadth of their 2G service these days?  It's very clear that it's talking about 3G.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see these ads a lot ; they run often during college football games here in Florida .
I have AT&amp;T on a non-3G phone so it does n't really apply to me , but if I were in the market for a 3G phone I 'd definitely want to follow-up on those ads .
I do n't think they 're misleading - they say " if you want to know why your friend 's 3G coverage is so spotty " ( or something along those lines , with 3G mentioned every time ) and the examples given are all 3G-specific ( high-bandwidth applications ) .
Besides , who advertises about the breadth of their 2G service these days ?
It 's very clear that it 's talking about 3G .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see these ads a lot; they run often during college football games here in Florida.
I have AT&amp;T on a non-3G phone so it doesn't really apply to me, but if I were in the market for a 3G phone I'd definitely want to follow-up on those ads.
I don't think they're misleading - they say "if you want to know why your friend's 3G coverage is so spotty" (or something along those lines, with 3G mentioned every time) and the examples given are all 3G-specific (high-bandwidth applications).
Besides, who advertises about the breadth of their 2G service these days?
It's very clear that it's talking about 3G.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157052</id>
	<title>Re:Now to get rid of noncompetes</title>
	<author>photon317</author>
	<datestamp>1258648680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Patents are not part of the libertarian ideal, therefore your logic fails.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Patents are not part of the libertarian ideal , therefore your logic fails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Patents are not part of the libertarian ideal, therefore your logic fails.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155598</id>
	<title>Truthful ads, actually</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258643220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Living out in the boonies, where a lot of baby-bells tend to roam, a lot of the bigger companies like AT&amp;T and Verizon have been competing like wildfire.  Not too long ago, my friend, who gets service through AT&amp;T and I, who goes through Verizon, decided to see who had better coverage in the plains states by seeing which had better signal coverage.  Whenever his service would drop a call, mine would go down to just 1 or no bars, but my calls never got dropped, unless it was a quick and steep incline in the road.  Even gradual inclines would drop his service.  That pretty much sealed it right there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Living out in the boonies , where a lot of baby-bells tend to roam , a lot of the bigger companies like AT&amp;T and Verizon have been competing like wildfire .
Not too long ago , my friend , who gets service through AT&amp;T and I , who goes through Verizon , decided to see who had better coverage in the plains states by seeing which had better signal coverage .
Whenever his service would drop a call , mine would go down to just 1 or no bars , but my calls never got dropped , unless it was a quick and steep incline in the road .
Even gradual inclines would drop his service .
That pretty much sealed it right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Living out in the boonies, where a lot of baby-bells tend to roam, a lot of the bigger companies like AT&amp;T and Verizon have been competing like wildfire.
Not too long ago, my friend, who gets service through AT&amp;T and I, who goes through Verizon, decided to see who had better coverage in the plains states by seeing which had better signal coverage.
Whenever his service would drop a call, mine would go down to just 1 or no bars, but my calls never got dropped, unless it was a quick and steep incline in the road.
Even gradual inclines would drop his service.
That pretty much sealed it right there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30165612</id>
	<title>Re:Now to get rid of noncompetes</title>
	<author>andresch</author>
	<datestamp>1258632960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Only if companies do not accept the government's help in reducing competition, can they morally make the claim that they are free market and should not be interfered with by the government.</p></div><p>This quote intrests me. I think I agree but I'm not sure I totally understand.  What help is it that companies accept from the government?</p><p>If it is patents, and the patent system can be corrected such that it gets back to mearly preventing theft, would libertarian ideas be less utopian?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only if companies do not accept the government 's help in reducing competition , can they morally make the claim that they are free market and should not be interfered with by the government.This quote intrests me .
I think I agree but I 'm not sure I totally understand .
What help is it that companies accept from the government ? If it is patents , and the patent system can be corrected such that it gets back to mearly preventing theft , would libertarian ideas be less utopian ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only if companies do not accept the government's help in reducing competition, can they morally make the claim that they are free market and should not be interfered with by the government.This quote intrests me.
I think I agree but I'm not sure I totally understand.
What help is it that companies accept from the government?If it is patents, and the patent system can be corrected such that it gets back to mearly preventing theft, would libertarian ideas be less utopian?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156124</id>
	<title>Re:Damn them all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258645500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Austin Texas, we have a couple of stores similar to what you propose. They're called Wireless Toyz. There you can look at hundreds of phones and accessories and multiple carriers. You can get practically anything you want there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Austin Texas , we have a couple of stores similar to what you propose .
They 're called Wireless Toyz .
There you can look at hundreds of phones and accessories and multiple carriers .
You can get practically anything you want there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Austin Texas, we have a couple of stores similar to what you propose.
They're called Wireless Toyz.
There you can look at hundreds of phones and accessories and multiple carriers.
You can get practically anything you want there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155856</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T vs Verizon</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1258644420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He ducked out and went with a Tracfone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He ducked out and went with a Tracfone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He ducked out and went with a Tracfone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156318</id>
	<title>Subjective</title>
	<author>TheNinjaroach</author>
	<datestamp>1258646160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How can Sprint AT&amp;T and Verizon all have the best 3G networks like they each claim in their commercials?</p></div><p>"Best" is a subjective term.  Does it mean the fastest 3G?  The one with the widest area of coverage?  The one with the least amount of downtime?  The one with the highest customer satisfaction?  Or some selective combination of all the above?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can Sprint AT&amp;T and Verizon all have the best 3G networks like they each claim in their commercials ?
" Best " is a subjective term .
Does it mean the fastest 3G ?
The one with the widest area of coverage ?
The one with the least amount of downtime ?
The one with the highest customer satisfaction ?
Or some selective combination of all the above ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can Sprint AT&amp;T and Verizon all have the best 3G networks like they each claim in their commercials?
"Best" is a subjective term.
Does it mean the fastest 3G?
The one with the widest area of coverage?
The one with the least amount of downtime?
The one with the highest customer satisfaction?
Or some selective combination of all the above?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156064</id>
	<title>Maps</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1258645260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't really compare the maps anyway.</p><p>Verizon's map is a coverage area map.  They paint broad swaths of area where they have towers, but don't show any gaps in signal.  Even up here in Verizon country (New England), I found that Verizon has plenty of dead zones where I don't get signal yet I'm in an area of the map that says I should.  Verizon just takes each tower (I guess) and paints a circle around it with the theoretical diameter that the tower could reach.</p><p>AT&amp;T's map, as far as I can see, is an actual signal map  If I zoom in on it, I see predicted levels of signal and gaps in coverage that correspond roughly with the gaps I actually experience when I'm going places.  It's not perfectly accurate, of course, but at least it makes the apparent attempt to be honest about actual signal.  I don't know how they do it - perhaps they simply check terrain in Google Earth and look for landscape that "shadows" a tower.  But whatever - I find it's very rare for me to lose signal in areas where the AT&amp;T map shows coverage.</p><p>So, while Verizon may technically be accurate in stating that they have better "3G coverage" nationwide, I bet if you actually compared signal (that is, areas where you can actually get a 3G signal, and not areas within x miles of a tower regardless of terrain), Verizon's map would look a whole lot less thorough.</p><p>Verizon has the better 3G coverage.  Fine, I get that.  Of course, I don't have a 3G capable phone so I really don't care.  But I get that it is important to some people.  Verizon even has (marginally) better Voice/non-3G Data coverage here in New England.</p><p>But I had no way of honestly comparing them based on the coverage maps.  AT&amp;T showed me incomplete coverage that matched my real-world experience with my prepaid Go! phone.  Verizon showed absolute 100\% coverage everywhere which certainly did NOT match our experience with my wife's Verizon phone.</p><p>Example:  My mother lives in a small town on the coast.  When I go to her house, coverage is VERY spotty - you basically have to be near a window to get a bar or two.  Verizon and AT&amp;T have the exact same actual signal - very low (1-2 bars) and you have to pretty much be at a window standing still to make a call and have any hope of completing a conversation.  My wife's Verizon phone and my AT&amp;T phone were pretty much identical in performance.</p><p>The maps tell a very different story.  AT&amp;T shows my mother's house as "no coverage" along with a good chunk of the peninsula she lives on.  Verizon shows the entire peninsula she lives on with full-on 3G coverage, no gaps whatsoever.  Most of the peninsula has *no coverage of any kind* with AT&amp;T or Verizon.</p><p>
&nbsp; I finally concluded that I'd rather be told the truth, and when my company offered the choice of carriers for my Crackberry I went with AT&amp;T.  It didn't hurt, of course, that Verizon also locks out the GPS on the models we had, and AT&amp;T allows me to use it (Verizon CLAIMED you could, but then they told you afterward that you had to buy the $10/month TeleNav service and even then you STILL wouldn't be allowed to use the GPS with anything other than TeleNav, Blackberry Maps, and Google Maps).</p><p>I have no particular love for AT&amp;T, but at least they appear to be making an effort at honesty about their signal coverage, and when they sell me a phone with a feature installed they let me use the feature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't really compare the maps anyway.Verizon 's map is a coverage area map .
They paint broad swaths of area where they have towers , but do n't show any gaps in signal .
Even up here in Verizon country ( New England ) , I found that Verizon has plenty of dead zones where I do n't get signal yet I 'm in an area of the map that says I should .
Verizon just takes each tower ( I guess ) and paints a circle around it with the theoretical diameter that the tower could reach.AT&amp;T 's map , as far as I can see , is an actual signal map If I zoom in on it , I see predicted levels of signal and gaps in coverage that correspond roughly with the gaps I actually experience when I 'm going places .
It 's not perfectly accurate , of course , but at least it makes the apparent attempt to be honest about actual signal .
I do n't know how they do it - perhaps they simply check terrain in Google Earth and look for landscape that " shadows " a tower .
But whatever - I find it 's very rare for me to lose signal in areas where the AT&amp;T map shows coverage.So , while Verizon may technically be accurate in stating that they have better " 3G coverage " nationwide , I bet if you actually compared signal ( that is , areas where you can actually get a 3G signal , and not areas within x miles of a tower regardless of terrain ) , Verizon 's map would look a whole lot less thorough.Verizon has the better 3G coverage .
Fine , I get that .
Of course , I do n't have a 3G capable phone so I really do n't care .
But I get that it is important to some people .
Verizon even has ( marginally ) better Voice/non-3G Data coverage here in New England.But I had no way of honestly comparing them based on the coverage maps .
AT&amp;T showed me incomplete coverage that matched my real-world experience with my prepaid Go !
phone. Verizon showed absolute 100 \ % coverage everywhere which certainly did NOT match our experience with my wife 's Verizon phone.Example : My mother lives in a small town on the coast .
When I go to her house , coverage is VERY spotty - you basically have to be near a window to get a bar or two .
Verizon and AT&amp;T have the exact same actual signal - very low ( 1-2 bars ) and you have to pretty much be at a window standing still to make a call and have any hope of completing a conversation .
My wife 's Verizon phone and my AT&amp;T phone were pretty much identical in performance.The maps tell a very different story .
AT&amp;T shows my mother 's house as " no coverage " along with a good chunk of the peninsula she lives on .
Verizon shows the entire peninsula she lives on with full-on 3G coverage , no gaps whatsoever .
Most of the peninsula has * no coverage of any kind * with AT&amp;T or Verizon .
  I finally concluded that I 'd rather be told the truth , and when my company offered the choice of carriers for my Crackberry I went with AT&amp;T .
It did n't hurt , of course , that Verizon also locks out the GPS on the models we had , and AT&amp;T allows me to use it ( Verizon CLAIMED you could , but then they told you afterward that you had to buy the $ 10/month TeleNav service and even then you STILL would n't be allowed to use the GPS with anything other than TeleNav , Blackberry Maps , and Google Maps ) .I have no particular love for AT&amp;T , but at least they appear to be making an effort at honesty about their signal coverage , and when they sell me a phone with a feature installed they let me use the feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't really compare the maps anyway.Verizon's map is a coverage area map.
They paint broad swaths of area where they have towers, but don't show any gaps in signal.
Even up here in Verizon country (New England), I found that Verizon has plenty of dead zones where I don't get signal yet I'm in an area of the map that says I should.
Verizon just takes each tower (I guess) and paints a circle around it with the theoretical diameter that the tower could reach.AT&amp;T's map, as far as I can see, is an actual signal map  If I zoom in on it, I see predicted levels of signal and gaps in coverage that correspond roughly with the gaps I actually experience when I'm going places.
It's not perfectly accurate, of course, but at least it makes the apparent attempt to be honest about actual signal.
I don't know how they do it - perhaps they simply check terrain in Google Earth and look for landscape that "shadows" a tower.
But whatever - I find it's very rare for me to lose signal in areas where the AT&amp;T map shows coverage.So, while Verizon may technically be accurate in stating that they have better "3G coverage" nationwide, I bet if you actually compared signal (that is, areas where you can actually get a 3G signal, and not areas within x miles of a tower regardless of terrain), Verizon's map would look a whole lot less thorough.Verizon has the better 3G coverage.
Fine, I get that.
Of course, I don't have a 3G capable phone so I really don't care.
But I get that it is important to some people.
Verizon even has (marginally) better Voice/non-3G Data coverage here in New England.But I had no way of honestly comparing them based on the coverage maps.
AT&amp;T showed me incomplete coverage that matched my real-world experience with my prepaid Go!
phone.  Verizon showed absolute 100\% coverage everywhere which certainly did NOT match our experience with my wife's Verizon phone.Example:  My mother lives in a small town on the coast.
When I go to her house, coverage is VERY spotty - you basically have to be near a window to get a bar or two.
Verizon and AT&amp;T have the exact same actual signal - very low (1-2 bars) and you have to pretty much be at a window standing still to make a call and have any hope of completing a conversation.
My wife's Verizon phone and my AT&amp;T phone were pretty much identical in performance.The maps tell a very different story.
AT&amp;T shows my mother's house as "no coverage" along with a good chunk of the peninsula she lives on.
Verizon shows the entire peninsula she lives on with full-on 3G coverage, no gaps whatsoever.
Most of the peninsula has *no coverage of any kind* with AT&amp;T or Verizon.
  I finally concluded that I'd rather be told the truth, and when my company offered the choice of carriers for my Crackberry I went with AT&amp;T.
It didn't hurt, of course, that Verizon also locks out the GPS on the models we had, and AT&amp;T allows me to use it (Verizon CLAIMED you could, but then they told you afterward that you had to buy the $10/month TeleNav service and even then you STILL wouldn't be allowed to use the GPS with anything other than TeleNav, Blackberry Maps, and Google Maps).I have no particular love for AT&amp;T, but at least they appear to be making an effort at honesty about their signal coverage, and when they sell me a phone with a feature installed they let me use the feature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155636</id>
	<title>A Whole Bunch Of Emo iPhone Retards Are Upset Now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258643460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now you've done it.</p><p>You better watch your back. And stay the fuck away from Starbucks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now you 've done it.You better watch your back .
And stay the fuck away from Starbucks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now you've done it.You better watch your back.
And stay the fuck away from Starbucks!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157856</id>
	<title>Best vs. Better</title>
	<author>Yeknomaguh</author>
	<datestamp>1258650960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to Truth in Advertising, you don't need to qualify the word "best." Anything can be the "best" in regards to any specific condition due to it being a subjective term.

However, and this has been brought to court successfully many times, "better" does need qualification. Something can only be "better" than something else if you can prove it.

So better is better than best and best is next to meaningless in advertising speak.</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to Truth in Advertising , you do n't need to qualify the word " best .
" Anything can be the " best " in regards to any specific condition due to it being a subjective term .
However , and this has been brought to court successfully many times , " better " does need qualification .
Something can only be " better " than something else if you can prove it .
So better is better than best and best is next to meaningless in advertising speak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to Truth in Advertising, you don't need to qualify the word "best.
" Anything can be the "best" in regards to any specific condition due to it being a subjective term.
However, and this has been brought to court successfully many times, "better" does need qualification.
Something can only be "better" than something else if you can prove it.
So better is better than best and best is next to meaningless in advertising speak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155748</id>
	<title>Damn them all</title>
	<author>Thyamine</author>
	<datestamp>1258644000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would be nice to be able to go to a generic cell service store where there's a two step process to getting a phone: 1.  select a phone, 2. select a carrier.  Have it all laid out right there in one store.  No need to stick with one carrier because you want a certain phone, more innovation on the cell phone side since manufacturers don't have to worry about carriers laying out the rules, and carriers forced to really compete with services because they can't guarantee users through phone lock-ins.  I know that probably won't happen here in the US anytime soon, if ever, but a nice happy thought to ponder while I sip on my coffee.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be nice to be able to go to a generic cell service store where there 's a two step process to getting a phone : 1. select a phone , 2. select a carrier .
Have it all laid out right there in one store .
No need to stick with one carrier because you want a certain phone , more innovation on the cell phone side since manufacturers do n't have to worry about carriers laying out the rules , and carriers forced to really compete with services because they ca n't guarantee users through phone lock-ins .
I know that probably wo n't happen here in the US anytime soon , if ever , but a nice happy thought to ponder while I sip on my coffee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be nice to be able to go to a generic cell service store where there's a two step process to getting a phone: 1.  select a phone, 2. select a carrier.
Have it all laid out right there in one store.
No need to stick with one carrier because you want a certain phone, more innovation on the cell phone side since manufacturers don't have to worry about carriers laying out the rules, and carriers forced to really compete with services because they can't guarantee users through phone lock-ins.
I know that probably won't happen here in the US anytime soon, if ever, but a nice happy thought to ponder while I sip on my coffee.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155486</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T vs Verizon</title>
	<author>santax</author>
	<datestamp>1258642680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's a bit like Goliath fighting Goliath.
Where the hell is David?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a bit like Goliath fighting Goliath .
Where the hell is David ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a bit like Goliath fighting Goliath.
Where the hell is David?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157170</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T vs Verizon</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1258648980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's Sprint.<br>Yes I am on Sprint. They have better coverage than T-Mobile at least as good as AT&amp;T, They are cheaper than AT&amp;T or Verizon, and they have really been working hard on their customer support. So far I have been very pleased.<br>Oh and they don't cripple phones.<br>The one downside is they are CDMA so you will have issues if you travel to the EU. If I go to the EU again for business I will probably get a cheap unlocked GSM phone and get a pay as you go sim there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's Sprint.Yes I am on Sprint .
They have better coverage than T-Mobile at least as good as AT&amp;T , They are cheaper than AT&amp;T or Verizon , and they have really been working hard on their customer support .
So far I have been very pleased.Oh and they do n't cripple phones.The one downside is they are CDMA so you will have issues if you travel to the EU .
If I go to the EU again for business I will probably get a cheap unlocked GSM phone and get a pay as you go sim there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's Sprint.Yes I am on Sprint.
They have better coverage than T-Mobile at least as good as AT&amp;T, They are cheaper than AT&amp;T or Verizon, and they have really been working hard on their customer support.
So far I have been very pleased.Oh and they don't cripple phones.The one downside is they are CDMA so you will have issues if you travel to the EU.
If I go to the EU again for business I will probably get a cheap unlocked GSM phone and get a pay as you go sim there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155792</id>
	<title>Re:Truth In Advertising</title>
	<author>Pope</author>
	<datestamp>1258644180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they're anything like the energy sector, all ads have to have the Legal Department's stamp of authority, so in this case, it passes muster.</p><p>It's like I used to say when I was a kid, "If your soap is so great, why is the other one the 'leading brand,' shouldn't yours be best?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're anything like the energy sector , all ads have to have the Legal Department 's stamp of authority , so in this case , it passes muster.It 's like I used to say when I was a kid , " If your soap is so great , why is the other one the 'leading brand, ' should n't yours be best ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're anything like the energy sector, all ads have to have the Legal Department's stamp of authority, so in this case, it passes muster.It's like I used to say when I was a kid, "If your soap is so great, why is the other one the 'leading brand,' shouldn't yours be best?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30158198</id>
	<title>Cry me a river AT$T</title>
	<author>EXrider</author>
	<datestamp>1258651980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Boo-freakin-hoo AT&amp;T, you blew your (iPhone) revenues on obnoxious and pervasive advertising while VZW spent their revenues building out their 3G network (first) with obnoxious advertisements following afterward. While I hate you both, you have no case AT&amp;T and your network is inferior.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Boo-freakin-hoo AT&amp;T , you blew your ( iPhone ) revenues on obnoxious and pervasive advertising while VZW spent their revenues building out their 3G network ( first ) with obnoxious advertisements following afterward .
While I hate you both , you have no case AT&amp;T and your network is inferior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boo-freakin-hoo AT&amp;T, you blew your (iPhone) revenues on obnoxious and pervasive advertising while VZW spent their revenues building out their 3G network (first) with obnoxious advertisements following afterward.
While I hate you both, you have no case AT&amp;T and your network is inferior.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155410</id>
	<title>Sue Me AT&amp;T!!</title>
	<author>happy\_place</author>
	<datestamp>1258642200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay this could get me sued, but here's a joke I just thought up... (yeah, it's lame)

Q. What did the snakecharmer say to advertise his business?

A. There's an asp for that.

wah-wah-wah...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay this could get me sued , but here 's a joke I just thought up... ( yeah , it 's lame ) Q. What did the snakecharmer say to advertise his business ?
A. There 's an asp for that .
wah-wah-wah.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay this could get me sued, but here's a joke I just thought up... (yeah, it's lame)

Q. What did the snakecharmer say to advertise his business?
A. There's an asp for that.
wah-wah-wah...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155504</id>
	<title>shi7&amp;!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258642680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>nearly two years When I stood f0r everyday...We BSD has always</htmltext>
<tokenext>nearly two years When I stood f0r everyday...We BSD has always</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nearly two years When I stood f0r everyday...We BSD has always</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156086</id>
	<title>Who needs that much 3G coverage?</title>
	<author>mcb</author>
	<datestamp>1258645380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just curious if people really care that much about nationwide 3G coverage.  Unless you travel constantly to many different states, what matters most is local coverage.</p><p>I visited northern NH for a week this summer and didn't have 3G (on AT&amp;T).  I barely noticed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just curious if people really care that much about nationwide 3G coverage .
Unless you travel constantly to many different states , what matters most is local coverage.I visited northern NH for a week this summer and did n't have 3G ( on AT&amp;T ) .
I barely noticed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just curious if people really care that much about nationwide 3G coverage.
Unless you travel constantly to many different states, what matters most is local coverage.I visited northern NH for a week this summer and didn't have 3G (on AT&amp;T).
I barely noticed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30160682</id>
	<title>Re:Damn them all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258659540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but you are still limited to "this phone works with this service".  Sure, someone hacked an early version of the iPhone to work with a T-mobile SIM, but if you want one of those flashy, over-advertised phones (iPhone, Droid, etc), you are still locked into a single carrier, even if a multi-carrier store sells many different phones and plans.</p><p>Dont believe me?  Go into Wireless Toyz and try and get the iPhone or Droid for the Sprint / Nextel Network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but you are still limited to " this phone works with this service " .
Sure , someone hacked an early version of the iPhone to work with a T-mobile SIM , but if you want one of those flashy , over-advertised phones ( iPhone , Droid , etc ) , you are still locked into a single carrier , even if a multi-carrier store sells many different phones and plans.Dont believe me ?
Go into Wireless Toyz and try and get the iPhone or Droid for the Sprint / Nextel Network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but you are still limited to "this phone works with this service".
Sure, someone hacked an early version of the iPhone to work with a T-mobile SIM, but if you want one of those flashy, over-advertised phones (iPhone, Droid, etc), you are still locked into a single carrier, even if a multi-carrier store sells many different phones and plans.Dont believe me?
Go into Wireless Toyz and try and get the iPhone or Droid for the Sprint / Nextel Network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30162834</id>
	<title>AT&amp;T lawyers don't understand public perceptio</title>
	<author>EjectButton</author>
	<datestamp>1258623480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AT&amp;T are a bunch of idiots for bringing this suit, and losing makes it even worse.  A lot of people were already aware of how crappy their coverage is and now even more people are.
<br> <br>
Verizon has pulled a lot of jackass moves in the past, like disabling half the features on a phone and making you pay for their crappy Verizon branded replacements.  They also nickel-and-dime you to death, have big overage costs, few low-end plans, and way overpriced accessories ($30 for a car charger, what?).  Also their customer support is bad, the people manning their kiosks (who are often not Verizon employees) will lie their asses off for a commission, and the corporate owned store employees will give you wrong information about half the time.
<br> <br>
As a Verizon customer (through their assimilation of Alltel) what I will give them credit for the following:<br>
1.  The Droid kicks ass as a smart phone, and almost nothing is disabled other than tethering, which you can get around if so inclined.  I didn't think they were capable of releasing an un-crippled decent phone but they did.<br>
2.  The 5GB cap everyone keeps bringing up (and was listed in those smartphone comparison charts) is a lie.  The 5GB cap applies to non-smarphones like a simple flip phone, if you get a smartphone like the Droid you are forced to get a different data plan (with a different name) which is "unlimited" in that there is no cap listed in the terms.  What they do say in the terms is they can cut you off if you have "excessive usage" which is in every phone company or ISP contract, but there is no hard cap.
2.  Their network blows AT&amp;T's out of the water in terms of coverage.  While AT&amp;T may be theoretically faster under perfect condition I care about what things are like in the real world, and if your signal sucks half the time then who cares how fast it is the rest of the time.  A little anecdote, I can drive around town at 40mph (southern AZ) with Last.fm streaming and it almost never drops out.  Most people I know with iphones, if they are in the wrong part of town, have to go outside to make a call and not have it drop after 5 minutes.<br> <br>

AT&amp;T and Verizon are both bastards, the difference is Verizon has a functional network and AT&amp;T just spent a bunch of money to point this out and make themselves look like crybabies who can't compete.</htmltext>
<tokenext>AT&amp;T are a bunch of idiots for bringing this suit , and losing makes it even worse .
A lot of people were already aware of how crappy their coverage is and now even more people are .
Verizon has pulled a lot of jackass moves in the past , like disabling half the features on a phone and making you pay for their crappy Verizon branded replacements .
They also nickel-and-dime you to death , have big overage costs , few low-end plans , and way overpriced accessories ( $ 30 for a car charger , what ? ) .
Also their customer support is bad , the people manning their kiosks ( who are often not Verizon employees ) will lie their asses off for a commission , and the corporate owned store employees will give you wrong information about half the time .
As a Verizon customer ( through their assimilation of Alltel ) what I will give them credit for the following : 1 .
The Droid kicks ass as a smart phone , and almost nothing is disabled other than tethering , which you can get around if so inclined .
I did n't think they were capable of releasing an un-crippled decent phone but they did .
2. The 5GB cap everyone keeps bringing up ( and was listed in those smartphone comparison charts ) is a lie .
The 5GB cap applies to non-smarphones like a simple flip phone , if you get a smartphone like the Droid you are forced to get a different data plan ( with a different name ) which is " unlimited " in that there is no cap listed in the terms .
What they do say in the terms is they can cut you off if you have " excessive usage " which is in every phone company or ISP contract , but there is no hard cap .
2. Their network blows AT&amp;T 's out of the water in terms of coverage .
While AT&amp;T may be theoretically faster under perfect condition I care about what things are like in the real world , and if your signal sucks half the time then who cares how fast it is the rest of the time .
A little anecdote , I can drive around town at 40mph ( southern AZ ) with Last.fm streaming and it almost never drops out .
Most people I know with iphones , if they are in the wrong part of town , have to go outside to make a call and not have it drop after 5 minutes .
AT&amp;T and Verizon are both bastards , the difference is Verizon has a functional network and AT&amp;T just spent a bunch of money to point this out and make themselves look like crybabies who ca n't compete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AT&amp;T are a bunch of idiots for bringing this suit, and losing makes it even worse.
A lot of people were already aware of how crappy their coverage is and now even more people are.
Verizon has pulled a lot of jackass moves in the past, like disabling half the features on a phone and making you pay for their crappy Verizon branded replacements.
They also nickel-and-dime you to death, have big overage costs, few low-end plans, and way overpriced accessories ($30 for a car charger, what?).
Also their customer support is bad, the people manning their kiosks (who are often not Verizon employees) will lie their asses off for a commission, and the corporate owned store employees will give you wrong information about half the time.
As a Verizon customer (through their assimilation of Alltel) what I will give them credit for the following:
1.
The Droid kicks ass as a smart phone, and almost nothing is disabled other than tethering, which you can get around if so inclined.
I didn't think they were capable of releasing an un-crippled decent phone but they did.
2.  The 5GB cap everyone keeps bringing up (and was listed in those smartphone comparison charts) is a lie.
The 5GB cap applies to non-smarphones like a simple flip phone, if you get a smartphone like the Droid you are forced to get a different data plan (with a different name) which is "unlimited" in that there is no cap listed in the terms.
What they do say in the terms is they can cut you off if you have "excessive usage" which is in every phone company or ISP contract, but there is no hard cap.
2.  Their network blows AT&amp;T's out of the water in terms of coverage.
While AT&amp;T may be theoretically faster under perfect condition I care about what things are like in the real world, and if your signal sucks half the time then who cares how fast it is the rest of the time.
A little anecdote, I can drive around town at 40mph (southern AZ) with Last.fm streaming and it almost never drops out.
Most people I know with iphones, if they are in the wrong part of town, have to go outside to make a call and not have it drop after 5 minutes.
AT&amp;T and Verizon are both bastards, the difference is Verizon has a functional network and AT&amp;T just spent a bunch of money to point this out and make themselves look like crybabies who can't compete.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155378</id>
	<title>Outcome Didn't Matter Either Way...</title>
	<author>blcamp</author>
	<datestamp>1258642080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMHO both companies's customer service are horrible, so it's irrelevant to me how good or bad their respective networks are.</p><p>They may "hear me now"...  but neither has been willing to LISTEN.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMHO both companies 's customer service are horrible , so it 's irrelevant to me how good or bad their respective networks are.They may " hear me now " ... but neither has been willing to LISTEN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMHO both companies's customer service are horrible, so it's irrelevant to me how good or bad their respective networks are.They may "hear me now"...  but neither has been willing to LISTEN.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156586</id>
	<title>Re:AT&amp;T vs Verizon</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1258647240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He went back to get more stones.  No one said anything about TWO of them!  Before leaving, David asked, "What do these guys eat for breakfast?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>He went back to get more stones .
No one said anything about TWO of them !
Before leaving , David asked , " What do these guys eat for breakfast ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He went back to get more stones.
No one said anything about TWO of them!
Before leaving, David asked, "What do these guys eat for breakfast?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155486</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30165612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30163144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30158340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30158888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30164504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30159806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30158950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30159938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30159670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30158190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30158128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30160748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30160682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30158152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30158456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30165298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30161872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1245234_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30161352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1245234.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30165612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1245234.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30161872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1245234.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30158190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30158950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1245234.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155350
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1245234.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1245234.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30158128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30159938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30164504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30159806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30159670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1245234.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30159296
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1245234.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1245234.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156012
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1245234.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1245234.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30165298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30161352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30158340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30163144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30157240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30158152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1245234.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30158888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1245234.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30158456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1245234.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1245234.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1245234.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30160682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30156896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30160748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1245234.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1245234.30155426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
