<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_03_2157250</id>
	<title>Children Using Technology Have Better Literacy Skills</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1259834580000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"A UK study of three thousand children aged nine to sixteen suggests something that may not come as a shock to geeks: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8392653.stm">using technology increases a child's core literary skills</a>.  As Researcher Obvious put it, 'The more forms of communications children use the stronger their core literary skills.'  And for those of us worried about a world of 'tl;dr' and 'Y U H8n?' the research claims that 'text speech' does not damage literacy.  The biggest shortcoming of this research is that it appears the <a href="http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/research/writing\_survey\_2009.html">children graded their own writing</a> in that their methodology was an online survey designed to ask the children which technology they use and then follow up with asking them how well they write to determine which children have better literacy skills."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " A UK study of three thousand children aged nine to sixteen suggests something that may not come as a shock to geeks : using technology increases a child 's core literary skills .
As Researcher Obvious put it , 'The more forms of communications children use the stronger their core literary skills .
' And for those of us worried about a world of 'tl ; dr ' and 'Y U H8n ?
' the research claims that 'text speech ' does not damage literacy .
The biggest shortcoming of this research is that it appears the children graded their own writing in that their methodology was an online survey designed to ask the children which technology they use and then follow up with asking them how well they write to determine which children have better literacy skills .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "A UK study of three thousand children aged nine to sixteen suggests something that may not come as a shock to geeks: using technology increases a child's core literary skills.
As Researcher Obvious put it, 'The more forms of communications children use the stronger their core literary skills.
'  And for those of us worried about a world of 'tl;dr' and 'Y U H8n?
' the research claims that 'text speech' does not damage literacy.
The biggest shortcoming of this research is that it appears the children graded their own writing in that their methodology was an online survey designed to ask the children which technology they use and then follow up with asking them how well they write to determine which children have better literacy skills.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30323444</id>
	<title>Re:Zero value study</title>
	<author>cvd6262</author>
	<datestamp>1259940660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you on this target variable because we can assess child literacy in a more objective manner.</p><p>However, there are plenty of psychological constructs for which self-assessment is the most accurate method of measurement. The results of those measures should at some point be compared against other non-self-reported data, but they are very useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you on this target variable because we can assess child literacy in a more objective manner.However , there are plenty of psychological constructs for which self-assessment is the most accurate method of measurement .
The results of those measures should at some point be compared against other non-self-reported data , but they are very useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you on this target variable because we can assess child literacy in a more objective manner.However, there are plenty of psychological constructs for which self-assessment is the most accurate method of measurement.
The results of those measures should at some point be compared against other non-self-reported data, but they are very useful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317980</id>
	<title>Waste of time.</title>
	<author>Capt.DrumkenBum</author>
	<datestamp>1259841000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone already knows that Linux users hold their liquor better than anyone else. I bet it has something to do with all that <b>free beer</b> I keep hearing about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone already knows that Linux users hold their liquor better than anyone else .
I bet it has something to do with all that free beer I keep hearing about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone already knows that Linux users hold their liquor better than anyone else.
I bet it has something to do with all that free beer I keep hearing about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317396</id>
	<title>Online Survey?</title>
	<author>MozeeToby</author>
	<datestamp>1259838780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An online survey isn't science, (If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane).  The summary itself exposes the falacy right out ("...may not come as a shock to geeks").  The geeks are the ones more likely to be filling out an online survey in the first place.  Not to mention the obvious class differences between those who have ready access to lots of technology vs those who don't and what that implies about their neighborhoods and schools.  There's all kinds of variables that arent being controlled for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An online survey is n't science , ( If you 're using these numbers to do anything important , you 're insane ) .
The summary itself exposes the falacy right out ( " ...may not come as a shock to geeks " ) .
The geeks are the ones more likely to be filling out an online survey in the first place .
Not to mention the obvious class differences between those who have ready access to lots of technology vs those who do n't and what that implies about their neighborhoods and schools .
There 's all kinds of variables that arent being controlled for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An online survey isn't science, (If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane).
The summary itself exposes the falacy right out ("...may not come as a shock to geeks").
The geeks are the ones more likely to be filling out an online survey in the first place.
Not to mention the obvious class differences between those who have ready access to lots of technology vs those who don't and what that implies about their neighborhoods and schools.
There's all kinds of variables that arent being controlled for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318482</id>
	<title>in other news...</title>
	<author>tinkerton</author>
	<datestamp>1259843280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Study finds that toddlers who spend all their time on slashdot are much smarter than the average toddler. Well I knew that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Study finds that toddlers who spend all their time on slashdot are much smarter than the average toddler .
Well I knew that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Study finds that toddlers who spend all their time on slashdot are much smarter than the average toddler.
Well I knew that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318508</id>
	<title>Re:Huge Fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259843460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other news, an online survey shows that Slashdot users are smarter, better looking, and less likely to live in their parents' basements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , an online survey shows that Slashdot users are smarter , better looking , and less likely to live in their parents ' basements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, an online survey shows that Slashdot users are smarter, better looking, and less likely to live in their parents' basements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317686</id>
	<title>Dunning-Krueger effect</title>
	<author>ArbitraryDescriptor</author>
	<datestamp>1259839740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of the children who neither blogged nor used social network sites, 47\% rated their writing as "good" or "very good", while 61\% of the bloggers and 56\% of the social networkers said the same.</p></div><p>It is baffling as to why anyone even bothered running this survey.  Even if we assume that these kids are not intentionally lying, studies have shown that people generally tend to rate themselves as above average.  To paraphrase these studies: <br> <br>Idiots do not realize they are stupid. (If you don't know there are 2 homophones of "there," then you won't know if you're using it wrong.)<br>Exceptionally intelligent types underestimate how much smarter they are than Joe-average ("I can't be the only one who thought that was easy")<br> And Joe-average tends to think he's Joe-average+1.  (No one wants to be average.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of the children who neither blogged nor used social network sites , 47 \ % rated their writing as " good " or " very good " , while 61 \ % of the bloggers and 56 \ % of the social networkers said the same.It is baffling as to why anyone even bothered running this survey .
Even if we assume that these kids are not intentionally lying , studies have shown that people generally tend to rate themselves as above average .
To paraphrase these studies : Idiots do not realize they are stupid .
( If you do n't know there are 2 homophones of " there , " then you wo n't know if you 're using it wrong .
) Exceptionally intelligent types underestimate how much smarter they are than Joe-average ( " I ca n't be the only one who thought that was easy " ) And Joe-average tends to think he 's Joe-average + 1 .
( No one wants to be average .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of the children who neither blogged nor used social network sites, 47\% rated their writing as "good" or "very good", while 61\% of the bloggers and 56\% of the social networkers said the same.It is baffling as to why anyone even bothered running this survey.
Even if we assume that these kids are not intentionally lying, studies have shown that people generally tend to rate themselves as above average.
To paraphrase these studies:  Idiots do not realize they are stupid.
(If you don't know there are 2 homophones of "there," then you won't know if you're using it wrong.
)Exceptionally intelligent types underestimate how much smarter they are than Joe-average ("I can't be the only one who thought that was easy") And Joe-average tends to think he's Joe-average+1.
(No one wants to be average.
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318054</id>
	<title>Re:Zero value study</title>
	<author>tool462</author>
	<datestamp>1259841360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can draw information from self-assessment, just not the information they were trying to get here.</p><p>For instance, the interesting study that found that 67\% of people think they are above average.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can draw information from self-assessment , just not the information they were trying to get here.For instance , the interesting study that found that 67 \ % of people think they are above average .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can draw information from self-assessment, just not the information they were trying to get here.For instance, the interesting study that found that 67\% of people think they are above average.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319612</id>
	<title>As a teacher .  . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous Poodle</author>
	<datestamp>1259850180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps the survey should have been titled: "Those who like to write tend to be better writers."</p><p>The survey designers have put the cart before the horse. The students are not better writers because of their use of new technology, but use new technology because they are better writers and well . . . like to write.</p><p>Think about it. Have you ever met a blogger that didn't enjoy writing?</p><p>I see this all the time in my classroom. The kids who write better produce more finished copy, and write more often as well. When we type our papers in the computer lab the better writer will complete one paper in the time their neighbor (the poor writer) has typed one sentence. . .  and changed the font 43 times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the survey should have been titled : " Those who like to write tend to be better writers .
" The survey designers have put the cart before the horse .
The students are not better writers because of their use of new technology , but use new technology because they are better writers and well .
. .
like to write.Think about it .
Have you ever met a blogger that did n't enjoy writing ? I see this all the time in my classroom .
The kids who write better produce more finished copy , and write more often as well .
When we type our papers in the computer lab the better writer will complete one paper in the time their neighbor ( the poor writer ) has typed one sentence .
. .
and changed the font 43 times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the survey should have been titled: "Those who like to write tend to be better writers.
"The survey designers have put the cart before the horse.
The students are not better writers because of their use of new technology, but use new technology because they are better writers and well .
. .
like to write.Think about it.
Have you ever met a blogger that didn't enjoy writing?I see this all the time in my classroom.
The kids who write better produce more finished copy, and write more often as well.
When we type our papers in the computer lab the better writer will complete one paper in the time their neighbor (the poor writer) has typed one sentence.
. .
and changed the font 43 times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30321432</id>
	<title>Re:Huge Fail - Agreed.</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1259868900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Tell me about it.. a self-selecting group of people grade themselves? How on earth is that scientific?"</p><p>Happens all the time, it's called peer review.</p></div><p>
+5 insightfull? - I would like to think the mods were refering to the title of your post but somehow I doubt it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Tell me about it.. a self-selecting group of people grade themselves ?
How on earth is that scientific ?
" Happens all the time , it 's called peer review .
+ 5 insightfull ?
- I would like to think the mods were refering to the title of your post but somehow I doubt it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Tell me about it.. a self-selecting group of people grade themselves?
How on earth is that scientific?
"Happens all the time, it's called peer review.
+5 insightfull?
- I would like to think the mods were refering to the title of your post but somehow I doubt it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317830</id>
	<title>Phonetically similar words</title>
	<author>s-whs</author>
	<datestamp>1259840340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>using technology increases a child's core literary skills. As Researcher Obvious put it, 'The more forms of communications children use the stronger their core literary skills.' And for those of us worried about a world of 'tl;dr' and 'Y U H8n?'</p></div><p>I don't know about literary skills, but I see an abundance of wrong spellings of words that don't have the right meaning but phonetically are almost the same. An example is 'of' instead of 'have'. E.g. someone may write "he would of done this" instead of "he would have done this". Probably caused by trying to write too fast and not thinking about what they wrote, and that's a phenomenon that I've only seen the last 4 years or so (I think I first spotted this in a subtitle for Torchwood. I almost couldn't believe my eyes, that such a mistake was made by the BBC). If that time estimate is correct for when this sort of thing started, then possibly technology, or probably better the entire lifestyle (fast paced, short attention span, exacerbated by TV's ads that interrupt programs) in the west these days, may be the cause of this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>using technology increases a child 's core literary skills .
As Researcher Obvious put it , 'The more forms of communications children use the stronger their core literary skills .
' And for those of us worried about a world of 'tl ; dr ' and 'Y U H8n ?
'I do n't know about literary skills , but I see an abundance of wrong spellings of words that do n't have the right meaning but phonetically are almost the same .
An example is 'of ' instead of 'have' .
E.g. someone may write " he would of done this " instead of " he would have done this " .
Probably caused by trying to write too fast and not thinking about what they wrote , and that 's a phenomenon that I 've only seen the last 4 years or so ( I think I first spotted this in a subtitle for Torchwood .
I almost could n't believe my eyes , that such a mistake was made by the BBC ) .
If that time estimate is correct for when this sort of thing started , then possibly technology , or probably better the entire lifestyle ( fast paced , short attention span , exacerbated by TV 's ads that interrupt programs ) in the west these days , may be the cause of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>using technology increases a child's core literary skills.
As Researcher Obvious put it, 'The more forms of communications children use the stronger their core literary skills.
' And for those of us worried about a world of 'tl;dr' and 'Y U H8n?
'I don't know about literary skills, but I see an abundance of wrong spellings of words that don't have the right meaning but phonetically are almost the same.
An example is 'of' instead of 'have'.
E.g. someone may write "he would of done this" instead of "he would have done this".
Probably caused by trying to write too fast and not thinking about what they wrote, and that's a phenomenon that I've only seen the last 4 years or so (I think I first spotted this in a subtitle for Torchwood.
I almost couldn't believe my eyes, that such a mistake was made by the BBC).
If that time estimate is correct for when this sort of thing started, then possibly technology, or probably better the entire lifestyle (fast paced, short attention span, exacerbated by TV's ads that interrupt programs) in the west these days, may be the cause of this.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30324276</id>
	<title>Re:Phonetically similar words</title>
	<author>pwfffff</author>
	<datestamp>1259944980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look up 'eggcorn'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look up 'eggcorn' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look up 'eggcorn'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317920</id>
	<title>Re:Zero value study</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259840760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Other research has shown a correlation between lack of ability and overestimation of ability in self-assessment."</p><p>You mean like slashdot?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/ducks</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Other research has shown a correlation between lack of ability and overestimation of ability in self-assessment .
" You mean like slashdot ?
/ducks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Other research has shown a correlation between lack of ability and overestimation of ability in self-assessment.
"You mean like slashdot?
/ducks</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317442</id>
	<title>Zero value study</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259838900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not merely a shortcoming, it is a devastating hole that renders the study utterly useless. This has to be about the dumbest survey I've ever heard of. No conclusions can be drawn from a self-assessment of ones own ability. Other research has shown a correlation between lack of ability and overestimation of ability in self-assessment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not merely a shortcoming , it is a devastating hole that renders the study utterly useless .
This has to be about the dumbest survey I 've ever heard of .
No conclusions can be drawn from a self-assessment of ones own ability .
Other research has shown a correlation between lack of ability and overestimation of ability in self-assessment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not merely a shortcoming, it is a devastating hole that renders the study utterly useless.
This has to be about the dumbest survey I've ever heard of.
No conclusions can be drawn from a self-assessment of ones own ability.
Other research has shown a correlation between lack of ability and overestimation of ability in self-assessment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30324364</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>Mr. DOS</author>
	<datestamp>1259945520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I halve a spelling checker,<br>It came with my pea see.<br>It plainly marks four my revue<br>Mistakes I dew knot sea.</p><p>Eye strike a key and type a word<br>And weight four it two say<br>Weather eye am wrong oar write<br>It shows me strait aweigh.</p><p>As soon as a mist ache is maid<br>It nose bee fore two long<br>And eye can put the era rite<br>Its rarely ever wrong.</p><p>I've scent this massage threw it,<br>And I'm shore your pleased too no<br>Its letter prefect in every weigh;<br>My checker tolled me sew.</p></div></blockquote><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; --- Mr. DOS</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I halve a spelling checker,It came with my pea see.It plainly marks four my revueMistakes I dew knot sea.Eye strike a key and type a wordAnd weight four it two sayWeather eye am wrong oar writeIt shows me strait aweigh.As soon as a mist ache is maidIt nose bee fore two longAnd eye can put the era riteIts rarely ever wrong.I 've scent this massage threw it,And I 'm shore your pleased too noIts letter prefect in every weigh ; My checker tolled me sew .
      --- Mr. DOS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I halve a spelling checker,It came with my pea see.It plainly marks four my revueMistakes I dew knot sea.Eye strike a key and type a wordAnd weight four it two sayWeather eye am wrong oar writeIt shows me strait aweigh.As soon as a mist ache is maidIt nose bee fore two longAnd eye can put the era riteIts rarely ever wrong.I've scent this massage threw it,And I'm shore your pleased too noIts letter prefect in every weigh;My checker tolled me sew.
      --- Mr. DOS
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30323096</id>
	<title>Re:Huge Fail</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259938500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eye right reel good! Eye yam litter 8! RU litter 8?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eye right reel good !
Eye yam litter 8 !
RU litter 8 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eye right reel good!
Eye yam litter 8!
RU litter 8?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317792</id>
	<title>Re:Huge Fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259840160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If most members of that group assign similar grades to their peers, that could mean in the light of this study that some of that "c u l8r" stuff can more or less informative to them, and that - shock! - people can be worse or better at using this newspeak, if I may say so. <i>This</i> is the valuable result of this study, not the actual ratings. In other words, we have just discovered that this newspeak is an actual language, which also has more and less skilled users, and that the quality of their newspeak skills doesn't necessarily correlate with their English skills.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If most members of that group assign similar grades to their peers , that could mean in the light of this study that some of that " c u l8r " stuff can more or less informative to them , and that - shock !
- people can be worse or better at using this newspeak , if I may say so .
This is the valuable result of this study , not the actual ratings .
In other words , we have just discovered that this newspeak is an actual language , which also has more and less skilled users , and that the quality of their newspeak skills does n't necessarily correlate with their English skills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If most members of that group assign similar grades to their peers, that could mean in the light of this study that some of that "c u l8r" stuff can more or less informative to them, and that - shock!
- people can be worse or better at using this newspeak, if I may say so.
This is the valuable result of this study, not the actual ratings.
In other words, we have just discovered that this newspeak is an actual language, which also has more and less skilled users, and that the quality of their newspeak skills doesn't necessarily correlate with their English skills.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317456</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259838960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was wondering when you "correlation does not imply causation" faggots would step in and point out the obvious.</p><p>Of the 15 posts currently up, this will be the first one to NOT point that out!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was wondering when you " correlation does not imply causation " faggots would step in and point out the obvious.Of the 15 posts currently up , this will be the first one to NOT point that out !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was wondering when you "correlation does not imply causation" faggots would step in and point out the obvious.Of the 15 posts currently up, this will be the first one to NOT point that out!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317316</id>
	<title>Seriously?</title>
	<author>bsDaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1259838420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I were to ask people what kind of technology they use and then ask them how well they hold their liquor, without testing the second half, then I haven't really done any research at all, have I?  No.  This could just as easily have said "children who use technology tend to think they're way smarter than everyone else."  It may turn out to be true, but that doesn't mean the research is actually valid.  Just sayin'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I were to ask people what kind of technology they use and then ask them how well they hold their liquor , without testing the second half , then I have n't really done any research at all , have I ?
No. This could just as easily have said " children who use technology tend to think they 're way smarter than everyone else .
" It may turn out to be true , but that does n't mean the research is actually valid .
Just sayin' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I were to ask people what kind of technology they use and then ask them how well they hold their liquor, without testing the second half, then I haven't really done any research at all, have I?
No.  This could just as easily have said "children who use technology tend to think they're way smarter than everyone else.
"  It may turn out to be true, but that doesn't mean the research is actually valid.
Just sayin'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318776</id>
	<title>Re:Online Survey?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259844960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>/. proves this. How can they omit the cowboy neal option?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>/ .
proves this .
How can they omit the cowboy neal option ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/.
proves this.
How can they omit the cowboy neal option?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317586</id>
	<title>From The Country That</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259839380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>has created the most colonial disasters in the world: Israel, India, Pakistan, Hong Kong, Australia, United States, Afghanistan, Iraq, and<br>so on and so forth.</p><p>Yours In Yasnogorsk,<br>Kilgore Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>has created the most colonial disasters in the world : Israel , India , Pakistan , Hong Kong , Australia , United States , Afghanistan , Iraq , andso on and so forth.Yours In Yasnogorsk,Kilgore Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>has created the most colonial disasters in the world: Israel, India, Pakistan, Hong Kong, Australia, United States, Afghanistan, Iraq, andso on and so forth.Yours In Yasnogorsk,Kilgore Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317562</id>
	<title>Re:Huge Fail</title>
	<author>Daimanta</author>
	<datestamp>1259839260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More like "People on the internet have big egos". So what? I already knew that. Because I rock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More like " People on the internet have big egos " .
So what ?
I already knew that .
Because I rock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More like "People on the internet have big egos".
So what?
I already knew that.
Because I rock.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30324714</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>oh\_my\_080980980</author>
	<datestamp>1259946960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More to the point, real studies point out the complete opposite.  Writing skills are sub-par.  Technology has not increased people's literary or intellectual abilities.  If anything, it has dumbed people down.  How many people know how to spell or know the definitions of words?</htmltext>
<tokenext>More to the point , real studies point out the complete opposite .
Writing skills are sub-par .
Technology has not increased people 's literary or intellectual abilities .
If anything , it has dumbed people down .
How many people know how to spell or know the definitions of words ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More to the point, real studies point out the complete opposite.
Writing skills are sub-par.
Technology has not increased people's literary or intellectual abilities.
If anything, it has dumbed people down.
How many people know how to spell or know the definitions of words?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30327230</id>
	<title>Re:Phonetically similar words</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259957160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Probably caused by trying to write too fast and not thinking about what they wrote</i></p><p>No, it's cause by never reading, and not thinking about the meaning of what one hears. Now that we have the internet, there are illiterates trying to learn to read by reading other illiterates' writing.</p><p>You can always tell whan someone on the internet is a reader; their spelling mistakes are clearly typoos and not illiterate ignorance like "if you have three rock's, you loose."</p><p>Yes, that typo was deliberate<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably caused by trying to write too fast and not thinking about what they wroteNo , it 's cause by never reading , and not thinking about the meaning of what one hears .
Now that we have the internet , there are illiterates trying to learn to read by reading other illiterates ' writing.You can always tell whan someone on the internet is a reader ; their spelling mistakes are clearly typoos and not illiterate ignorance like " if you have three rock 's , you loose .
" Yes , that typo was deliberate ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably caused by trying to write too fast and not thinking about what they wroteNo, it's cause by never reading, and not thinking about the meaning of what one hears.
Now that we have the internet, there are illiterates trying to learn to read by reading other illiterates' writing.You can always tell whan someone on the internet is a reader; their spelling mistakes are clearly typoos and not illiterate ignorance like "if you have three rock's, you loose.
"Yes, that typo was deliberate ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317360</id>
	<title>you know...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259838600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is also a correlation between wealth and access to technology.  And a correlation between wealth and literacy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is also a correlation between wealth and access to technology .
And a correlation between wealth and literacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is also a correlation between wealth and access to technology.
And a correlation between wealth and literacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30321102</id>
	<title>Re:Huge Fail</title>
	<author>ReneeJade</author>
	<datestamp>1259864520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> - people can be worse or better at using this newspeak, if I may say so.</p> </div><p>Referring to the overuse abbreviated spelling as "newspeak" seems a little odd. Do you remember what "newspeak" originally meant?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- people can be worse or better at using this newspeak , if I may say so .
Referring to the overuse abbreviated spelling as " newspeak " seems a little odd .
Do you remember what " newspeak " originally meant ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> - people can be worse or better at using this newspeak, if I may say so.
Referring to the overuse abbreviated spelling as "newspeak" seems a little odd.
Do you remember what "newspeak" originally meant?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318066</id>
	<title>Examples:</title>
	<author>itedo</author>
	<datestamp>1259841480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Automatic spell-checking does not add to literacy skills. I've never heard of a nine year old kid that has said something like  "Wow, I just learned (from MS Word) that SOSAGE is spelled SAUSAGE correctly. " Of course, all the emoticons like "^^<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:o   T.T"  do not improve their literacy skills either.</p><p>If you write blogs about "stoopid school" and "teechers sucks a$$", this won't improve your literacy skills. If you write something like this "lfg 2dd +tank UBRS rly fast run gogo" - not improving anything...</p><p>Most kids copy and paste their homework from Wikipedia. They don't even bother to improve themselves. "New Technology" makes them really dependable.</p><p>BBC Quote: "They see enormous advantages in the relationship between teacher and child. Sometimes the computer is closer to the child than the teacher by the age of 13."<br>-&gt; The computer is closer to the child than the parents. Side effect of our time. Don't wonder, if the computer/ the web programmes the child and not vice versa.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Automatic spell-checking does not add to literacy skills .
I 've never heard of a nine year old kid that has said something like " Wow , I just learned ( from MS Word ) that SOSAGE is spelled SAUSAGE correctly .
" Of course , all the emoticons like " ^ ^ : - ) : o T.T " do not improve their literacy skills either.If you write blogs about " stoopid school " and " teechers sucks a $ $ " , this wo n't improve your literacy skills .
If you write something like this " lfg 2dd + tank UBRS rly fast run gogo " - not improving anything...Most kids copy and paste their homework from Wikipedia .
They do n't even bother to improve themselves .
" New Technology " makes them really dependable.BBC Quote : " They see enormous advantages in the relationship between teacher and child .
Sometimes the computer is closer to the child than the teacher by the age of 13 .
" - &gt; The computer is closer to the child than the parents .
Side effect of our time .
Do n't wonder , if the computer/ the web programmes the child and not vice versa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Automatic spell-checking does not add to literacy skills.
I've never heard of a nine year old kid that has said something like  "Wow, I just learned (from MS Word) that SOSAGE is spelled SAUSAGE correctly.
" Of course, all the emoticons like "^^ :-) :o   T.T"  do not improve their literacy skills either.If you write blogs about "stoopid school" and "teechers sucks a$$", this won't improve your literacy skills.
If you write something like this "lfg 2dd +tank UBRS rly fast run gogo" - not improving anything...Most kids copy and paste their homework from Wikipedia.
They don't even bother to improve themselves.
"New Technology" makes them really dependable.BBC Quote: "They see enormous advantages in the relationship between teacher and child.
Sometimes the computer is closer to the child than the teacher by the age of 13.
"-&gt; The computer is closer to the child than the parents.
Side effect of our time.
Don't wonder, if the computer/ the web programmes the child and not vice versa.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30326620</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259954640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yew shut all wise truss yore spill chucker!</p><p>If you want to learn spelling and grammar, read a lot of BOOKS. Books that have had professional writers, editors and proofreaders. The internet is NOT a good place to learn grammar, and a spell checker is the reason so many people use the verb "loose" when they really need the verb "lose". It's also the reason they don't know the difference between there, they're, and their.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yew shut all wise truss yore spill chucker ! If you want to learn spelling and grammar , read a lot of BOOKS .
Books that have had professional writers , editors and proofreaders .
The internet is NOT a good place to learn grammar , and a spell checker is the reason so many people use the verb " loose " when they really need the verb " lose " .
It 's also the reason they do n't know the difference between there , they 're , and their .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yew shut all wise truss yore spill chucker!If you want to learn spelling and grammar, read a lot of BOOKS.
Books that have had professional writers, editors and proofreaders.
The internet is NOT a good place to learn grammar, and a spell checker is the reason so many people use the verb "loose" when they really need the verb "lose".
It's also the reason they don't know the difference between there, they're, and their.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30321066</id>
	<title>Self-assessment, yes, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259864040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anyone pointed out that this was an ONLINE survey?  I suspect that puts those who don't use technology at something of a disadvantage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone pointed out that this was an ONLINE survey ?
I suspect that puts those who do n't use technology at something of a disadvantage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone pointed out that this was an ONLINE survey?
I suspect that puts those who don't use technology at something of a disadvantage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317674</id>
	<title>Re:OMG yes!</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1259839680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ewe hav too bee more better 2 mak it n2 colege. Eye have scene some badder righting coming from gooder students, but they are soon made sum more better aftre reeding my righing. I'11 tech ur kids howl 2 bee the goodest. U'll see.<br>Sighned: Pubic Skool Teecher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ewe hav too bee more better 2 mak it n2 colege .
Eye have scene some badder righting coming from gooder students , but they are soon made sum more better aftre reeding my righing .
I'11 tech ur kids howl 2 bee the goodest .
U 'll see.Sighned : Pubic Skool Teecher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ewe hav too bee more better 2 mak it n2 colege.
Eye have scene some badder righting coming from gooder students, but they are soon made sum more better aftre reeding my righing.
I'11 tech ur kids howl 2 bee the goodest.
U'll see.Sighned: Pubic Skool Teecher.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317404</id>
	<title>Time for a classic</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1259838780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reading ability also increases with shoe size.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading ability also increases with shoe size .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading ability also increases with shoe size.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319572</id>
	<title>Literacy does not mean anability to express...</title>
	<author>kj\_kabaje</author>
	<datestamp>1259849880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the authors mean by literacy the ability to read, rather than express oneself, I can see how this would be true.  Technology alone, as of yet, does not have an adequate means for providing feedback on written communication.  I work in part on an automated essay evaluator, and getting a computer to provide meaningful and contextualized feedback is extremely difficult.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the authors mean by literacy the ability to read , rather than express oneself , I can see how this would be true .
Technology alone , as of yet , does not have an adequate means for providing feedback on written communication .
I work in part on an automated essay evaluator , and getting a computer to provide meaningful and contextualized feedback is extremely difficult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the authors mean by literacy the ability to read, rather than express oneself, I can see how this would be true.
Technology alone, as of yet, does not have an adequate means for providing feedback on written communication.
I work in part on an automated essay evaluator, and getting a computer to provide meaningful and contextualized feedback is extremely difficult.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30320638</id>
	<title>I love it when idiots who think they're smart...</title>
	<author>thesandtiger</author>
	<datestamp>1259858880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bitch about results from research being "obvious," as if looking into it doesn't serve a purpose.</p><p>See, there's this thing called a "hypothesis" which is a guess (usually pretty well informed) about how something might work. Then - and I know this sounds just totally crazy - but then you *test* that hypothesis by collecting data that's relevant. Insane, right? But that whole process is kind of a big deal as far as the whole "science" thing goes, if you're at all into that.</p><p>About the "obviousness" of it... My father thinks it's "obvious" that kids who use technology are sub-literate morons because they send texts like "OMG IDK MY BFF JILL" and don't know how to use proper capitalization and spelling in email due to a reliance on spell-check and a "close enough is good enough" mentality. Gosh, if only there were some way to test one "obvious" idea against another completely opposed "obvious" idea!</p><p>This is a site largely frequented by nerds. I would expect a bit more scientific literacy, but "obviously" that's just not the case here. I guess eldavojohn is "obviously" a moron.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bitch about results from research being " obvious , " as if looking into it does n't serve a purpose.See , there 's this thing called a " hypothesis " which is a guess ( usually pretty well informed ) about how something might work .
Then - and I know this sounds just totally crazy - but then you * test * that hypothesis by collecting data that 's relevant .
Insane , right ?
But that whole process is kind of a big deal as far as the whole " science " thing goes , if you 're at all into that.About the " obviousness " of it... My father thinks it 's " obvious " that kids who use technology are sub-literate morons because they send texts like " OMG IDK MY BFF JILL " and do n't know how to use proper capitalization and spelling in email due to a reliance on spell-check and a " close enough is good enough " mentality .
Gosh , if only there were some way to test one " obvious " idea against another completely opposed " obvious " idea ! This is a site largely frequented by nerds .
I would expect a bit more scientific literacy , but " obviously " that 's just not the case here .
I guess eldavojohn is " obviously " a moron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bitch about results from research being "obvious," as if looking into it doesn't serve a purpose.See, there's this thing called a "hypothesis" which is a guess (usually pretty well informed) about how something might work.
Then - and I know this sounds just totally crazy - but then you *test* that hypothesis by collecting data that's relevant.
Insane, right?
But that whole process is kind of a big deal as far as the whole "science" thing goes, if you're at all into that.About the "obviousness" of it... My father thinks it's "obvious" that kids who use technology are sub-literate morons because they send texts like "OMG IDK MY BFF JILL" and don't know how to use proper capitalization and spelling in email due to a reliance on spell-check and a "close enough is good enough" mentality.
Gosh, if only there were some way to test one "obvious" idea against another completely opposed "obvious" idea!This is a site largely frequented by nerds.
I would expect a bit more scientific literacy, but "obviously" that's just not the case here.
I guess eldavojohn is "obviously" a moron.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30322886</id>
	<title>Re:you know...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259936640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That... wealth and access to healthcare, wealth and a hell of a lot of stuff. Heh, I could pat myself in the back for going to a top ten school in my state and entering college with grades over 100\% on my files, but I know very much what it comes from, since private prep schools in the region I'm from get a 15\% bump on grades.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That... wealth and access to healthcare , wealth and a hell of a lot of stuff .
Heh , I could pat myself in the back for going to a top ten school in my state and entering college with grades over 100 \ % on my files , but I know very much what it comes from , since private prep schools in the region I 'm from get a 15 \ % bump on grades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That... wealth and access to healthcare, wealth and a hell of a lot of stuff.
Heh, I could pat myself in the back for going to a top ten school in my state and entering college with grades over 100\% on my files, but I know very much what it comes from, since private prep schools in the region I'm from get a 15\% bump on grades.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30320772</id>
	<title>Re:Huge Fail</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1259860320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Happens all the time, it's called peer review.</p></div><p>Your lack of science knowledge is astounding.</p><p><b>Peer</b> review is you know, when your <b>peers</b> review your work.  That's why it's called <b>peer</b> review, and not <i>self</i> review.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Happens all the time , it 's called peer review.Your lack of science knowledge is astounding.Peer review is you know , when your peers review your work .
That 's why it 's called peer review , and not self review .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Happens all the time, it's called peer review.Your lack of science knowledge is astounding.Peer review is you know, when your peers review your work.
That's why it's called peer review, and not self review.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317938</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30321930</id>
	<title>Peer review ...</title>
	<author>migloo</author>
	<datestamp>1259920320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Peer review" is the other name of "inbreeding".</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Peer review " is the other name of " inbreeding " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Peer review" is the other name of "inbreeding".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30320772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30323366</id>
	<title>Re:Zero value study</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1259940180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I were to perform a study, however, I would like to grade the students on writing ability (grammar errors, spelling errors, etc), and then compare those grades to their self-assessments. Is it possible that technology causes us to overestimate our literacy skills?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I were to perform a study , however , I would like to grade the students on writing ability ( grammar errors , spelling errors , etc ) , and then compare those grades to their self-assessments .
Is it possible that technology causes us to overestimate our literacy skills ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I were to perform a study, however, I would like to grade the students on writing ability (grammar errors, spelling errors, etc), and then compare those grades to their self-assessments.
Is it possible that technology causes us to overestimate our literacy skills?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317938</id>
	<title>Re:Huge Fail</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1259840820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Tell me about it.. a self-selecting group of people grade themselves? How on earth is that scientific?"</p><p>Happens all the time, it's called peer review.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Tell me about it.. a self-selecting group of people grade themselves ?
How on earth is that scientific ?
" Happens all the time , it 's called peer review .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Tell me about it.. a self-selecting group of people grade themselves?
How on earth is that scientific?
"Happens all the time, it's called peer review.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317570</id>
	<title>more practice = improved literacy = technology</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1259839260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had a period of time between school and the rise of blogging where I didn't write as much.  And I guess my writing skills languished. I think they've improved now. I probably dont write long essays or papers as well because I haven't been doing that in a long time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a period of time between school and the rise of blogging where I did n't write as much .
And I guess my writing skills languished .
I think they 've improved now .
I probably dont write long essays or papers as well because I have n't been doing that in a long time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a period of time between school and the rise of blogging where I didn't write as much.
And I guess my writing skills languished.
I think they've improved now.
I probably dont write long essays or papers as well because I haven't been doing that in a long time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30320086</id>
	<title>So, literature class got updated?</title>
	<author>formfeed</author>
	<datestamp>1259853960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And in English literature, instead of writing an essay analyzing the drama structure of a play we read in class, you will have to "text a friend about that thing we read"</htmltext>
<tokenext>And in English literature , instead of writing an essay analyzing the drama structure of a play we read in class , you will have to " text a friend about that thing we read "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And in English literature, instead of writing an essay analyzing the drama structure of a play we read in class, you will have to "text a friend about that thing we read"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318504</id>
	<title>l337 Speak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259843460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>techonoly &amp; chillern in interweb has litature skillz.</p><p>Source(s) - <a href="http://ask.yahoo.com/" title="yahoo.com" rel="nofollow">http://ask.yahoo.com/</a> [yahoo.com]/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>techonoly &amp; chillern in interweb has litature skillz.Source ( s ) - http : //ask.yahoo.com/ [ yahoo.com ] /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>techonoly &amp; chillern in interweb has litature skillz.Source(s) - http://ask.yahoo.com/ [yahoo.com]/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317682</id>
	<title>Re:Zero value study</title>
	<author>Endo13</author>
	<datestamp>1259839680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No conclusions can be drawn from a self-assessment of ones own ability.</p></div><p>Sure there can. After reading the article, I have drawn the conclusion that the participants in the survey consider themselves more literate than they are.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No conclusions can be drawn from a self-assessment of ones own ability.Sure there can .
After reading the article , I have drawn the conclusion that the participants in the survey consider themselves more literate than they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No conclusions can be drawn from a self-assessment of ones own ability.Sure there can.
After reading the article, I have drawn the conclusion that the participants in the survey consider themselves more literate than they are.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30321798</id>
	<title>Re:Phonetically similar words</title>
	<author>WaroDaBeast</author>
	<datestamp>1259918220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A prime example of this trend in the videogame sphere is <i>Doom 3</i> &mdash; I would come across spelling mistakes about every other time I read an email in the protagonist's PDA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A prime example of this trend in the videogame sphere is Doom 3    I would come across spelling mistakes about every other time I read an email in the protagonist 's PDA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A prime example of this trend in the videogame sphere is Doom 3 — I would come across spelling mistakes about every other time I read an email in the protagonist's PDA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317940</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1259840820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, see, the researchers in question graded their own research, see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , see , the researchers in question graded their own research , see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, see, the researchers in question graded their own research, see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317426</id>
	<title>OMG yes!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259838840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I no.  this story iz so tru.  i c ug apps 4 my college that luk lik this.  way smart</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I no .
this story iz so tru .
i c ug apps 4 my college that luk lik this .
way smart</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I no.
this story iz so tru.
i c ug apps 4 my college that luk lik this.
way smart</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317818</id>
	<title>Corelation is not causation.</title>
	<author>wonkavader</author>
	<datestamp>1259840280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kids can afford to use different media because thier parents can afford it.</p><p>To some extent, wealth is correlated with education.</p><p>Certainly the most obvious causal factor for language skills is the amount of language skills their parents exhibit.  Those are correlated with both education and wealth.</p><p>It may not be the toys, but the parents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kids can afford to use different media because thier parents can afford it.To some extent , wealth is correlated with education.Certainly the most obvious causal factor for language skills is the amount of language skills their parents exhibit .
Those are correlated with both education and wealth.It may not be the toys , but the parents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kids can afford to use different media because thier parents can afford it.To some extent, wealth is correlated with education.Certainly the most obvious causal factor for language skills is the amount of language skills their parents exhibit.
Those are correlated with both education and wealth.It may not be the toys, but the parents.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317362</id>
	<title>Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>ShanghaiBill</author>
	<datestamp>1259838660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the summary: <i>using technology increases a child's core literary skills</i><p>
Neither the BBC article nor the researchers make this claim.  They just say that it is <b>correlated</b> with better literacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the summary : using technology increases a child 's core literary skills Neither the BBC article nor the researchers make this claim .
They just say that it is correlated with better literacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the summary: using technology increases a child's core literary skills
Neither the BBC article nor the researchers make this claim.
They just say that it is correlated with better literacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318144</id>
	<title>Re:Huge Fail</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1259841780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your questions get progressively difficult to comprehend, then it's a pretty sure bet that the more questions return answered, the higher the literacy. And instead of making it a multiple-choice, the survey questions may ask for answers in actual sentences. This would test the ability to read <i>and</i> write (at worst, the written answer can be analyzed and given a grade).</p><p>Not that that's what they were doing, but it's one method at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your questions get progressively difficult to comprehend , then it 's a pretty sure bet that the more questions return answered , the higher the literacy .
And instead of making it a multiple-choice , the survey questions may ask for answers in actual sentences .
This would test the ability to read and write ( at worst , the written answer can be analyzed and given a grade ) .Not that that 's what they were doing , but it 's one method at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your questions get progressively difficult to comprehend, then it's a pretty sure bet that the more questions return answered, the higher the literacy.
And instead of making it a multiple-choice, the survey questions may ask for answers in actual sentences.
This would test the ability to read and write (at worst, the written answer can be analyzed and given a grade).Not that that's what they were doing, but it's one method at least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319434</id>
	<title>Re:Huge Fail</title>
	<author>YayaY</author>
	<datestamp>1259848740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dunning-Kruger effect :</p><p>The Dunning&ndash;Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which "people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it". The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than actuality; by contrast the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. This leads to a perverse result where less competent people will rate their own ability higher than more competent people. It also explains why actual competence may weaken self-confidence because competent individuals falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. "Thus, the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others."</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning\%E2\%80\%93Kruger\_effect" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning\%E2\%80\%93Kruger\_effect</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dunning-Kruger effect : The Dunning    Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which " people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it " .
The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority , rating their own ability as above average , much higher than actuality ; by contrast the highly skilled underrate their abilities , suffering from illusory inferiority .
This leads to a perverse result where less competent people will rate their own ability higher than more competent people .
It also explains why actual competence may weaken self-confidence because competent individuals falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding .
" Thus , the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self , whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others .
" http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning \ % E2 \ % 80 \ % 93Kruger \ _effect [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dunning-Kruger effect :The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which "people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it".
The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than actuality; by contrast the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority.
This leads to a perverse result where less competent people will rate their own ability higher than more competent people.
It also explains why actual competence may weaken self-confidence because competent individuals falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding.
"Thus, the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning\%E2\%80\%93Kruger\_effect [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317616</id>
	<title>Re:Huge Fail</title>
	<author>TheKidWho</author>
	<datestamp>1259839500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other news, practice makes perfect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , practice makes perfect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, practice makes perfect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30320046</id>
	<title>Re:Huge Fail</title>
	<author>Alex Belits</author>
	<datestamp>1259853540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lol wut.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lol wut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol wut.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317416</id>
	<title>I'm surprised by this</title>
	<author>L3370</author>
	<datestamp>1259838840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>rofl omg i been usin tech 4 a looooooong time since i wuz a kid now i read good but my boss tellz me not to send emails and memos nemore cuz no1 can read em lol!!!1</htmltext>
<tokenext>rofl omg i been usin tech 4 a looooooong time since i wuz a kid now i read good but my boss tellz me not to send emails and memos nemore cuz no1 can read em lol ! !
! 1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rofl omg i been usin tech 4 a looooooong time since i wuz a kid now i read good but my boss tellz me not to send emails and memos nemore cuz no1 can read em lol!!
!1</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317498</id>
	<title>so...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259839080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><em> The biggest shortcoming of this research is that it appears the children graded their own writing in that their methodology was an online survey designed to ask the children which technology they use and then follow up with asking them how well they write to determine which children have better literacy skills</em>
<br> <br>
So, really, the only conclusion we can draw from this is that 'the more technology one uses, the better they <strong>think</strong> their literacy is." Great.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest shortcoming of this research is that it appears the children graded their own writing in that their methodology was an online survey designed to ask the children which technology they use and then follow up with asking them how well they write to determine which children have better literacy skills So , really , the only conclusion we can draw from this is that 'the more technology one uses , the better they think their literacy is .
" Great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The biggest shortcoming of this research is that it appears the children graded their own writing in that their methodology was an online survey designed to ask the children which technology they use and then follow up with asking them how well they write to determine which children have better literacy skills
 
So, really, the only conclusion we can draw from this is that 'the more technology one uses, the better they think their literacy is.
" Great.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319682</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1259850780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>From the summary: using technology increases a child's core literary skills

</p><p>Neither the BBC article nor the researchers make this claim. They just say that it is correlated with better literacy.</p></div></blockquote><p>Don't blame the summarizer for not having access to technology as a child, and thus lacking literacy skills.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the summary : using technology increases a child 's core literary skills Neither the BBC article nor the researchers make this claim .
They just say that it is correlated with better literacy.Do n't blame the summarizer for not having access to technology as a child , and thus lacking literacy skills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the summary: using technology increases a child's core literary skills

Neither the BBC article nor the researchers make this claim.
They just say that it is correlated with better literacy.Don't blame the summarizer for not having access to technology as a child, and thus lacking literacy skills.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317592</id>
	<title>Re:Huge Fail</title>
	<author>Nit Picker</author>
	<datestamp>1259839380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.</p><p>Besides the fact that people who feel their writing is good are more likely to write, somewhere I have read a research study showing that poor students are likely to overrate their mastery of a subject whereas good students are more likely to underrate their ability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly.Besides the fact that people who feel their writing is good are more likely to write , somewhere I have read a research study showing that poor students are likely to overrate their mastery of a subject whereas good students are more likely to underrate their ability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.Besides the fact that people who feel their writing is good are more likely to write, somewhere I have read a research study showing that poor students are likely to overrate their mastery of a subject whereas good students are more likely to underrate their ability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318900</id>
	<title>Re:Huge Fail</title>
	<author>Majik Sheff</author>
	<datestamp>1259845620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're right, text speech doesn't degrade literary skills... it's an indicator of deep-seated brain damage.  They had cause and effect reversed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're right , text speech does n't degrade literary skills... it 's an indicator of deep-seated brain damage .
They had cause and effect reversed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're right, text speech doesn't degrade literary skills... it's an indicator of deep-seated brain damage.
They had cause and effect reversed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319258</id>
	<title>More specific theory...</title>
	<author>Pollux</author>
	<datestamp>1259847480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article...</p><p><i>Of the children who neither blogged nor used social network sites, 47\% rated their writing as "good" or "very good", while 61\% of the bloggers and 56\% of the social networkers said the same.</i></p><p>I believe that a lower number of children feel good or very good about their writing, because w/o an online audience, their only likely critic would be their school teacher.  Teachers are more likely to be critical of writing, with the hope that their constructive criticism encourages students to correct mistakes to improve writing skills.</p><p>On the other hand, bloggers are more likely to get critiqued by their peers.  Peer reviews are much more likely to be positive in nature (with likely comments including "LOL" and "dudz ur sooooooooooooooooooooo funy"), with few to no comments involving constructive criticism.</p><p>As such, those who are reviewed by teachers get less positive feedback, leading them to feel less confident about their writing skills, and those who are reviewed online by peers get much more (though empty) positive feedback, inflating their self-esteem and making them feel more confident about their writing.</p><p>But in no way, shape, or form, does this survey (anyone who tries to call this a "study" needs to go to college to learn what a real study looks like) prove that kids + technology = better writing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article...Of the children who neither blogged nor used social network sites , 47 \ % rated their writing as " good " or " very good " , while 61 \ % of the bloggers and 56 \ % of the social networkers said the same.I believe that a lower number of children feel good or very good about their writing , because w/o an online audience , their only likely critic would be their school teacher .
Teachers are more likely to be critical of writing , with the hope that their constructive criticism encourages students to correct mistakes to improve writing skills.On the other hand , bloggers are more likely to get critiqued by their peers .
Peer reviews are much more likely to be positive in nature ( with likely comments including " LOL " and " dudz ur sooooooooooooooooooooo funy " ) , with few to no comments involving constructive criticism.As such , those who are reviewed by teachers get less positive feedback , leading them to feel less confident about their writing skills , and those who are reviewed online by peers get much more ( though empty ) positive feedback , inflating their self-esteem and making them feel more confident about their writing.But in no way , shape , or form , does this survey ( anyone who tries to call this a " study " needs to go to college to learn what a real study looks like ) prove that kids + technology = better writing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article...Of the children who neither blogged nor used social network sites, 47\% rated their writing as "good" or "very good", while 61\% of the bloggers and 56\% of the social networkers said the same.I believe that a lower number of children feel good or very good about their writing, because w/o an online audience, their only likely critic would be their school teacher.
Teachers are more likely to be critical of writing, with the hope that their constructive criticism encourages students to correct mistakes to improve writing skills.On the other hand, bloggers are more likely to get critiqued by their peers.
Peer reviews are much more likely to be positive in nature (with likely comments including "LOL" and "dudz ur sooooooooooooooooooooo funy"), with few to no comments involving constructive criticism.As such, those who are reviewed by teachers get less positive feedback, leading them to feel less confident about their writing skills, and those who are reviewed online by peers get much more (though empty) positive feedback, inflating their self-esteem and making them feel more confident about their writing.But in no way, shape, or form, does this survey (anyone who tries to call this a "study" needs to go to college to learn what a real study looks like) prove that kids + technology = better writing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317358</id>
	<title>One result they didn't include...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259838600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Childrren who used Facebook and MySpace were actually dumber for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Childrren who used Facebook and MySpace were actually dumber for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Childrren who used Facebook and MySpace were actually dumber for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318230</id>
	<title>Giving back to /.</title>
	<author>DingoTango</author>
	<datestamp>1259842140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.starfall.com/" title="starfall.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.starfall.com/</a> [starfall.com] is a website that can significantly help your pre-schooler and early reader improve their literacy, based on my son's experience with it.  (More self-reporting bias?)

I first learned about this site on slashdot a couple of years ago, and it is so good, I want to make sure it is shared.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.starfall.com/ [ starfall.com ] is a website that can significantly help your pre-schooler and early reader improve their literacy , based on my son 's experience with it .
( More self-reporting bias ?
) I first learned about this site on slashdot a couple of years ago , and it is so good , I want to make sure it is shared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.starfall.com/ [starfall.com] is a website that can significantly help your pre-schooler and early reader improve their literacy, based on my son's experience with it.
(More self-reporting bias?
)

I first learned about this site on slashdot a couple of years ago, and it is so good, I want to make sure it is shared.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319234</id>
	<title>wat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259847300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>can someone explain the article i didnt understand</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>can someone explain the article i didnt understand</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can someone explain the article i didnt understand</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319594</id>
	<title>Well, and don't *you* know...</title>
	<author>Estanislao Martínez</author>
	<datestamp>1259850060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There is also a correlation between wealth and access to technology. And a correlation between wealth and literacy.</p></div></blockquote><p>There are statistical techniques to analyze the contribution of multiple variables to a result, and social scientists routinely use these techniques to control for confounding factors like wealth.

</p><p>For example, a typical study on something racism will claim something like, say, that <b>after controlling for wealth and education</b>, black people get worse deals on mortages; that is, the study will use statistical techniques to isolate the contribution of the three variables (race, wealth and education).  A typical dumbass that doesn't like the conclusion of the study, however, will claim that the study is invalid because blacks are poorer and less educated than whites, and poorer people get worse mortgage deals.  Which is, of course, a strawman, because the statistical techniques used in these studies are normally designed to compare people who have similar wealth and education but different race.

</p><p>I certainly can't vouch for the study that's mentioned in this article, but I somehow doubt that you're any more ready to vouch against it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is also a correlation between wealth and access to technology .
And a correlation between wealth and literacy.There are statistical techniques to analyze the contribution of multiple variables to a result , and social scientists routinely use these techniques to control for confounding factors like wealth .
For example , a typical study on something racism will claim something like , say , that after controlling for wealth and education , black people get worse deals on mortages ; that is , the study will use statistical techniques to isolate the contribution of the three variables ( race , wealth and education ) .
A typical dumbass that does n't like the conclusion of the study , however , will claim that the study is invalid because blacks are poorer and less educated than whites , and poorer people get worse mortgage deals .
Which is , of course , a strawman , because the statistical techniques used in these studies are normally designed to compare people who have similar wealth and education but different race .
I certainly ca n't vouch for the study that 's mentioned in this article , but I somehow doubt that you 're any more ready to vouch against it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is also a correlation between wealth and access to technology.
And a correlation between wealth and literacy.There are statistical techniques to analyze the contribution of multiple variables to a result, and social scientists routinely use these techniques to control for confounding factors like wealth.
For example, a typical study on something racism will claim something like, say, that after controlling for wealth and education, black people get worse deals on mortages; that is, the study will use statistical techniques to isolate the contribution of the three variables (race, wealth and education).
A typical dumbass that doesn't like the conclusion of the study, however, will claim that the study is invalid because blacks are poorer and less educated than whites, and poorer people get worse mortgage deals.
Which is, of course, a strawman, because the statistical techniques used in these studies are normally designed to compare people who have similar wealth and education but different race.
I certainly can't vouch for the study that's mentioned in this article, but I somehow doubt that you're any more ready to vouch against it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317680</id>
	<title>DK</title>
	<author>MSG</author>
	<datestamp>1259839680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought slashdot ran a story on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning\%E2\%80\%93Kruger\_effect" title="wikipedia.org">Dunning-Kruger effect</a> [wikipedia.org] fairly recently.  Am I imagining things?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought slashdot ran a story on the Dunning-Kruger effect [ wikipedia.org ] fairly recently .
Am I imagining things ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought slashdot ran a story on the Dunning-Kruger effect [wikipedia.org] fairly recently.
Am I imagining things?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317812</id>
	<title>Re:Zero value study</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1259840280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Other research has shown a correlation between lack of ability and overestimation of ability in self-assessment.</i></p><p>Though for completeness sake, it should be mentioned that those studies showed that correlation by asking the participants how much they had overestimated their own abilities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Other research has shown a correlation between lack of ability and overestimation of ability in self-assessment.Though for completeness sake , it should be mentioned that those studies showed that correlation by asking the participants how much they had overestimated their own abilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other research has shown a correlation between lack of ability and overestimation of ability in self-assessment.Though for completeness sake, it should be mentioned that those studies showed that correlation by asking the participants how much they had overestimated their own abilities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30322388</id>
	<title>Isn't this obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259928960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The average 9-16 spends literally hours every evening on msn, face book and the like.<br>If I told my secondary school teacher I was spending that amount of time reading and writing she would have jumped for joy!<br>The grammar and syntax used by most are not really that bad (certainly no worse than the average article written in any of the British newspapers aimed at adults).<br>Yes we complain they use acronyms and deliberately misspell words for time saving -<br>but isn't that simply evolution of the language? (And what the apostrophe was invented to do) of which we are all guilty of?<br>A quick poll in the office shows two of the 15 professionals I work with actually know what I.T. stands for despite it being a regularly used term of which few mis-understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The average 9-16 spends literally hours every evening on msn , face book and the like.If I told my secondary school teacher I was spending that amount of time reading and writing she would have jumped for joy ! The grammar and syntax used by most are not really that bad ( certainly no worse than the average article written in any of the British newspapers aimed at adults ) .Yes we complain they use acronyms and deliberately misspell words for time saving -but is n't that simply evolution of the language ?
( And what the apostrophe was invented to do ) of which we are all guilty of ? A quick poll in the office shows two of the 15 professionals I work with actually know what I.T .
stands for despite it being a regularly used term of which few mis-understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The average 9-16 spends literally hours every evening on msn, face book and the like.If I told my secondary school teacher I was spending that amount of time reading and writing she would have jumped for joy!The grammar and syntax used by most are not really that bad (certainly no worse than the average article written in any of the British newspapers aimed at adults).Yes we complain they use acronyms and deliberately misspell words for time saving -but isn't that simply evolution of the language?
(And what the apostrophe was invented to do) of which we are all guilty of?A quick poll in the office shows two of the 15 professionals I work with actually know what I.T.
stands for despite it being a regularly used term of which few mis-understand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317272</id>
	<title>Huge Fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259838300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can say I'm amazing at intercourse, but it doesn't make it so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can say I 'm amazing at intercourse , but it does n't make it so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can say I'm amazing at intercourse, but it doesn't make it so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30320058</id>
	<title>Re:Huge Fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259853720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...I've got a 9 year old nephew whose head's stuck so far up the ass of Nintendo that he has yet to be able to look someone in the eye during a greeting and shake their hand like a little gentleman, hates reading and can't even find the glossary in a book. Zero core culture skills. I own a small tech firm and love the stuff! But keep this crap away from them til' high school. The smart ones can be ramped up on the latest tech basics over a weekend. Get your little asses out on the pitch and play football, go camping, read friggin' books for christ's sake. And interact with people, not gear! Run Logan! Run!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...I 've got a 9 year old nephew whose head 's stuck so far up the ass of Nintendo that he has yet to be able to look someone in the eye during a greeting and shake their hand like a little gentleman , hates reading and ca n't even find the glossary in a book .
Zero core culture skills .
I own a small tech firm and love the stuff !
But keep this crap away from them til ' high school .
The smart ones can be ramped up on the latest tech basics over a weekend .
Get your little asses out on the pitch and play football , go camping , read friggin ' books for christ 's sake .
And interact with people , not gear !
Run Logan !
Run !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I've got a 9 year old nephew whose head's stuck so far up the ass of Nintendo that he has yet to be able to look someone in the eye during a greeting and shake their hand like a little gentleman, hates reading and can't even find the glossary in a book.
Zero core culture skills.
I own a small tech firm and love the stuff!
But keep this crap away from them til' high school.
The smart ones can be ramped up on the latest tech basics over a weekend.
Get your little asses out on the pitch and play football, go camping, read friggin' books for christ's sake.
And interact with people, not gear!
Run Logan!
Run!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317820</id>
	<title>Re:Dunning-Krueger effect</title>
	<author>Labcoat Samurai</author>
	<datestamp>1259840280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aha!  Thank you.  This was what I was trying to come up with.  If only I had hit refresh an extra time rather than posting down below.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aha !
Thank you .
This was what I was trying to come up with .
If only I had hit refresh an extra time rather than posting down below .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aha!
Thank you.
This was what I was trying to come up with.
If only I had hit refresh an extra time rather than posting down below.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319442</id>
	<title>Re:OMG yes!</title>
	<author>RightwingNutjob</author>
	<datestamp>1259848860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're missing the point, friend. Like the red square on a white canvas, it's art, not stupidity. These kids should be given the highest philological scholarship available at your institution, so that they may perfect their craft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're missing the point , friend .
Like the red square on a white canvas , it 's art , not stupidity .
These kids should be given the highest philological scholarship available at your institution , so that they may perfect their craft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're missing the point, friend.
Like the red square on a white canvas, it's art, not stupidity.
These kids should be given the highest philological scholarship available at your institution, so that they may perfect their craft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318010</id>
	<title>Re:Huge Fail</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1259841120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmm.  I wonder if self-grading their own work is how the researchers got their degrees.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm .
I wonder if self-grading their own work is how the researchers got their degrees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm.
I wonder if self-grading their own work is how the researchers got their degrees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318248</id>
	<title>Re:Zero value study</title>
	<author>evanbd</author>
	<datestamp>1259842200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Other research has shown a correlation between lack of ability and overestimation of ability in self-assessment.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf" title="apa.org">Unskilled and unaware</a> [apa.org] (pdf) is one such study.  Very interesting stuff.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Other research has shown a correlation between lack of ability and overestimation of ability in self-assessment .
Unskilled and unaware [ apa.org ] ( pdf ) is one such study .
Very interesting stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other research has shown a correlation between lack of ability and overestimation of ability in self-assessment.
Unskilled and unaware [apa.org] (pdf) is one such study.
Very interesting stuff.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30320272</id>
	<title>Correlation is not... seriously folks.</title>
	<author>Torodung</author>
	<datestamp>1259855700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fact is, wealthy kids have more access to technology. Wealth generally equals better language skills. Enough to create a marked correlation. Period. This is true if only because the wealthy <b>define</b> what "literacy skills" are. Always have, and until wealth no longer matters, always will.</p><p>They used to think that such benefits of wealth were the product of "good breeding" in jolly old England. They were wrong. Being well fed, having opportunities, and living in a community where you weren't in fear of your life, and in this case with individual tutors to teach you your subjects and surrounded by people with equivalent training, was what caused "literacy," not genetics.</p><p>It's the same case here, but a different false cause. If you regularly "blog, text or use social networking websites," you fall into the all-important "wealthier than 80\% of the people on the planet" category, and that makes <b>all the difference</b>. Remove "texting" from your criteria and you're in probably clear into the 95th percentile.</p><p>(Oh, and side note, sample size? Only 3001 respondents?! Really.)</p><p>Correlative studies of this sort are a waste of time. As in: Forgone conclusion, unspecified causative link, completely subjective measurements. It would be as useful to say that warm water <b>feels</b> less wet than cold, and is therefore not as wet, and that heating water makes it less potent.</p><p>--<br>Toro</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fact is , wealthy kids have more access to technology .
Wealth generally equals better language skills .
Enough to create a marked correlation .
Period. This is true if only because the wealthy define what " literacy skills " are .
Always have , and until wealth no longer matters , always will.They used to think that such benefits of wealth were the product of " good breeding " in jolly old England .
They were wrong .
Being well fed , having opportunities , and living in a community where you were n't in fear of your life , and in this case with individual tutors to teach you your subjects and surrounded by people with equivalent training , was what caused " literacy , " not genetics.It 's the same case here , but a different false cause .
If you regularly " blog , text or use social networking websites , " you fall into the all-important " wealthier than 80 \ % of the people on the planet " category , and that makes all the difference .
Remove " texting " from your criteria and you 're in probably clear into the 95th percentile .
( Oh , and side note , sample size ?
Only 3001 respondents ? !
Really. ) Correlative studies of this sort are a waste of time .
As in : Forgone conclusion , unspecified causative link , completely subjective measurements .
It would be as useful to say that warm water feels less wet than cold , and is therefore not as wet , and that heating water makes it less potent.--Toro</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fact is, wealthy kids have more access to technology.
Wealth generally equals better language skills.
Enough to create a marked correlation.
Period. This is true if only because the wealthy define what "literacy skills" are.
Always have, and until wealth no longer matters, always will.They used to think that such benefits of wealth were the product of "good breeding" in jolly old England.
They were wrong.
Being well fed, having opportunities, and living in a community where you weren't in fear of your life, and in this case with individual tutors to teach you your subjects and surrounded by people with equivalent training, was what caused "literacy," not genetics.It's the same case here, but a different false cause.
If you regularly "blog, text or use social networking websites," you fall into the all-important "wealthier than 80\% of the people on the planet" category, and that makes all the difference.
Remove "texting" from your criteria and you're in probably clear into the 95th percentile.
(Oh, and side note, sample size?
Only 3001 respondents?!
Really.)Correlative studies of this sort are a waste of time.
As in: Forgone conclusion, unspecified causative link, completely subjective measurements.
It would be as useful to say that warm water feels less wet than cold, and is therefore not as wet, and that heating water makes it less potent.--Toro</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319674</id>
	<title>Re:Online Survey?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259850720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can think of one case when an online survey got published; someone did a survey of people dissociative disorders via a dissociative disorders support forum. They collected some (relatively) absurd number of responses, which gave them excellent subjective data. Of course, this survey is still bullshit, but, hey, valid data can be gotten!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can think of one case when an online survey got published ; someone did a survey of people dissociative disorders via a dissociative disorders support forum .
They collected some ( relatively ) absurd number of responses , which gave them excellent subjective data .
Of course , this survey is still bullshit , but , hey , valid data can be gotten !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can think of one case when an online survey got published; someone did a survey of people dissociative disorders via a dissociative disorders support forum.
They collected some (relatively) absurd number of responses, which gave them excellent subjective data.
Of course, this survey is still bullshit, but, hey, valid data can be gotten!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317960</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>Beardo the Bearded</author>
	<datestamp>1259840940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was my thought when I read the title on RSS -- are they conflating correlation and causation again?</p><p>I would suggest that if you've got a lot of technology at your house (in my case, the computers outnumber the people) then you have a fair bit of extra cash on hand. That probably means that you've got a well-paying job, not two or three low-end jobs. That means you're home more often and spend more time with your kids and thus encourage them to read.</p><p>I know a guy my age who learned Japanese just to be able to play imported games and watch anime. A kid I know was motivated to read so he could follow along the Final Fantasy plotlines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was my thought when I read the title on RSS -- are they conflating correlation and causation again ? I would suggest that if you 've got a lot of technology at your house ( in my case , the computers outnumber the people ) then you have a fair bit of extra cash on hand .
That probably means that you 've got a well-paying job , not two or three low-end jobs .
That means you 're home more often and spend more time with your kids and thus encourage them to read.I know a guy my age who learned Japanese just to be able to play imported games and watch anime .
A kid I know was motivated to read so he could follow along the Final Fantasy plotlines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was my thought when I read the title on RSS -- are they conflating correlation and causation again?I would suggest that if you've got a lot of technology at your house (in my case, the computers outnumber the people) then you have a fair bit of extra cash on hand.
That probably means that you've got a well-paying job, not two or three low-end jobs.
That means you're home more often and spend more time with your kids and thus encourage them to read.I know a guy my age who learned Japanese just to be able to play imported games and watch anime.
A kid I know was motivated to read so he could follow along the Final Fantasy plotlines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317692</id>
	<title>Stupid people don't know that they're stupid</title>
	<author>Labcoat Samurai</author>
	<datestamp>1259839740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't seem to come up with the name for the effect (named for the researchers who observed it), but I'm fairly sure there's research out there that suggests that people who have great confidence in their performance on cognitive tests disproportionately tend to have scored poorly.  In short, stupid people don't know that they're stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't seem to come up with the name for the effect ( named for the researchers who observed it ) , but I 'm fairly sure there 's research out there that suggests that people who have great confidence in their performance on cognitive tests disproportionately tend to have scored poorly .
In short , stupid people do n't know that they 're stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't seem to come up with the name for the effect (named for the researchers who observed it), but I'm fairly sure there's research out there that suggests that people who have great confidence in their performance on cognitive tests disproportionately tend to have scored poorly.
In short, stupid people don't know that they're stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319844</id>
	<title>Re:Online Survey?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259852100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The geeks are the ones more likely to be filling out an online survey in the first place.</p></div><p>I don't know, all those dame MyFace users might have the geeks beat for filling out inane online surveys.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The geeks are the ones more likely to be filling out an online survey in the first place.I do n't know , all those dame MyFace users might have the geeks beat for filling out inane online surveys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The geeks are the ones more likely to be filling out an online survey in the first place.I don't know, all those dame MyFace users might have the geeks beat for filling out inane online surveys.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30321922</id>
	<title>Works for me though</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1259920200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know the old correlation is not causation thing, but I owe a great deal of my improvement to being online.  I started using BBSes when I was in my early teens and quickly found that to be respected, one had to learn to write better.  It didn't take me long before I adjusted to that particular climate and what decades of public school never accomplished occurred in me a few weeks to a few months.  Before long, my first draft of anything was nearly equal to my final draft and often was.</p><p>I'm not going to say that's going to be the case today.  The climate is different now.  People are more tolerant of errors and bad grammar.  My own older sons are not quite the English language scholar that I was at their age and they are quite active online... but then again, their activities are largely on chat rooms and social networking sites.</p><p>Once again, correlation not being causation, but as my desire to be heard and understood within the environment I grew up in was my motivation.  The environment is different now but I can't imagine the motivation changing much at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know the old correlation is not causation thing , but I owe a great deal of my improvement to being online .
I started using BBSes when I was in my early teens and quickly found that to be respected , one had to learn to write better .
It did n't take me long before I adjusted to that particular climate and what decades of public school never accomplished occurred in me a few weeks to a few months .
Before long , my first draft of anything was nearly equal to my final draft and often was.I 'm not going to say that 's going to be the case today .
The climate is different now .
People are more tolerant of errors and bad grammar .
My own older sons are not quite the English language scholar that I was at their age and they are quite active online... but then again , their activities are largely on chat rooms and social networking sites.Once again , correlation not being causation , but as my desire to be heard and understood within the environment I grew up in was my motivation .
The environment is different now but I ca n't imagine the motivation changing much at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know the old correlation is not causation thing, but I owe a great deal of my improvement to being online.
I started using BBSes when I was in my early teens and quickly found that to be respected, one had to learn to write better.
It didn't take me long before I adjusted to that particular climate and what decades of public school never accomplished occurred in me a few weeks to a few months.
Before long, my first draft of anything was nearly equal to my final draft and often was.I'm not going to say that's going to be the case today.
The climate is different now.
People are more tolerant of errors and bad grammar.
My own older sons are not quite the English language scholar that I was at their age and they are quite active online... but then again, their activities are largely on chat rooms and social networking sites.Once again, correlation not being causation, but as my desire to be heard and understood within the environment I grew up in was my motivation.
The environment is different now but I can't imagine the motivation changing much at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317500</id>
	<title>I'm not surprised</title>
	<author>pwnies</author>
	<datestamp>1259839080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've noticed that since being online my spelling has improved tremendously. As a kid growing up I always had much difficulty with spelling/grammar, but in a world of red squiggly lines misspelled words become hard to ignore. I know most people say that spell check ruins people's ability to spell, however I'd argue the opposite.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've noticed that since being online my spelling has improved tremendously .
As a kid growing up I always had much difficulty with spelling/grammar , but in a world of red squiggly lines misspelled words become hard to ignore .
I know most people say that spell check ruins people 's ability to spell , however I 'd argue the opposite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've noticed that since being online my spelling has improved tremendously.
As a kid growing up I always had much difficulty with spelling/grammar, but in a world of red squiggly lines misspelled words become hard to ignore.
I know most people say that spell check ruins people's ability to spell, however I'd argue the opposite.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30321304</id>
	<title>Re:Examples:</title>
	<author>Belial6</author>
	<datestamp>1259867100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can tell you that I learned to spell correctly from spell checkers.  I went from an extremely poor speller at the age of 13 to a pretty good speller by the age of 16.  It wasn't a new interest in spelling that did it.  It was having instant feedback that was easy to correct instead of a marked up page 3 days later.<br> <br>

I can also say that right now, spell checking, and more importantly, type ahead is MASSIVELY improving my 5 year old's spelling.  Going online and doing searches on Google, with it's type ahead, has changed him from a phonetic speller to a reasonably good speller, and he gets better by the day.<br> <br>

Of course, like many things, technology can be a double edged sword.  Your kid can gain a huge vocabulary by watching lots of TV, but if they sit and watch the same "educational" episode of Wow Wow Wubbsy, not only will they not get an increased vocabulary, but the vocabulary the do get will be poor.  Your kid can learn to read and gain problem solving skills from video games, but you read everything for them.  Your kid can learn to read and spell by surfing the internet, but not if you place a set of 2 icons on the desktop that take them directly to PBS Kids and Nickalodian, then only let them go to those sites while you supervise every key press.
<br> <br>

So, I only half tongue in cheek coin the phrase "If you want a really smart kid, make sure they get lost of TV, video games and unsupervised time on the internet."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can tell you that I learned to spell correctly from spell checkers .
I went from an extremely poor speller at the age of 13 to a pretty good speller by the age of 16 .
It was n't a new interest in spelling that did it .
It was having instant feedback that was easy to correct instead of a marked up page 3 days later .
I can also say that right now , spell checking , and more importantly , type ahead is MASSIVELY improving my 5 year old 's spelling .
Going online and doing searches on Google , with it 's type ahead , has changed him from a phonetic speller to a reasonably good speller , and he gets better by the day .
Of course , like many things , technology can be a double edged sword .
Your kid can gain a huge vocabulary by watching lots of TV , but if they sit and watch the same " educational " episode of Wow Wow Wubbsy , not only will they not get an increased vocabulary , but the vocabulary the do get will be poor .
Your kid can learn to read and gain problem solving skills from video games , but you read everything for them .
Your kid can learn to read and spell by surfing the internet , but not if you place a set of 2 icons on the desktop that take them directly to PBS Kids and Nickalodian , then only let them go to those sites while you supervise every key press .
So , I only half tongue in cheek coin the phrase " If you want a really smart kid , make sure they get lost of TV , video games and unsupervised time on the internet .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can tell you that I learned to spell correctly from spell checkers.
I went from an extremely poor speller at the age of 13 to a pretty good speller by the age of 16.
It wasn't a new interest in spelling that did it.
It was having instant feedback that was easy to correct instead of a marked up page 3 days later.
I can also say that right now, spell checking, and more importantly, type ahead is MASSIVELY improving my 5 year old's spelling.
Going online and doing searches on Google, with it's type ahead, has changed him from a phonetic speller to a reasonably good speller, and he gets better by the day.
Of course, like many things, technology can be a double edged sword.
Your kid can gain a huge vocabulary by watching lots of TV, but if they sit and watch the same "educational" episode of Wow Wow Wubbsy, not only will they not get an increased vocabulary, but the vocabulary the do get will be poor.
Your kid can learn to read and gain problem solving skills from video games, but you read everything for them.
Your kid can learn to read and spell by surfing the internet, but not if you place a set of 2 icons on the desktop that take them directly to PBS Kids and Nickalodian, then only let them go to those sites while you supervise every key press.
So, I only half tongue in cheek coin the phrase "If you want a really smart kid, make sure they get lost of TV, video games and unsupervised time on the internet.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30320768</id>
	<title>/. summary is misleading</title>
	<author>TeethWhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1259860260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Since relatively little is known about young people&rsquo;s views about writing in the UK, the key
objectives of this survey were: to explore how much young people enjoy writing, what type of
writing they engage in, how good at writing they think they are and what they think about writing.</p></div><p>
The survey wasn't meant to find out how good kids are at writing.  It was meant to find out if kids are engaging in writing.  The article points out that a vast majority of children ages 9-16 write regularly and that most enjoy the task when they can choose the topic.  The self-evaluation part that everyone seems to be denigrating is meant to highlight the fact that about half of the children surveyed have <i>confidence</i> in their writing skills.  <i>Of course</i> this doesn't necessarily mean that they're objectively good writers.  That's not the point of the study.  But it does mean that a majority of them are comfortable with writing, which is extremely important.  I know some of you are going to throw out the old hackneyed standby, "Correlation is not causation," and that's fine.  If you want to claim that practicing the skill of written communication on a regular basis is merely correlated to being more effective at communicating via the written word, then that's your prerogative.  And for you grammar nazis out there, to frantically fret over split infinitives and to avoid prepositions to end your clauses with are practices just as arbitrary as choosing to spell 'later' as 'l8r' (perhaps more so, as the latter at least has efficiency on its side).  Grammar is a social phenomenon, not a linguistic one.  Is you understanding what I be saying?  The syntax is there, and that's all that matters for effective communication (for all you linguists, I freely admit that my grasp of AAVE is less than stellar).  The rest is fluorish (I understand that speaking AAVE in, say, a job interview may be somewhat of a turn-off to potential employers, but that really is just a prejudice of the employers).  Alright, lecture over.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA : Since relatively little is known about young people    s views about writing in the UK , the key objectives of this survey were : to explore how much young people enjoy writing , what type of writing they engage in , how good at writing they think they are and what they think about writing .
The survey was n't meant to find out how good kids are at writing .
It was meant to find out if kids are engaging in writing .
The article points out that a vast majority of children ages 9-16 write regularly and that most enjoy the task when they can choose the topic .
The self-evaluation part that everyone seems to be denigrating is meant to highlight the fact that about half of the children surveyed have confidence in their writing skills .
Of course this does n't necessarily mean that they 're objectively good writers .
That 's not the point of the study .
But it does mean that a majority of them are comfortable with writing , which is extremely important .
I know some of you are going to throw out the old hackneyed standby , " Correlation is not causation , " and that 's fine .
If you want to claim that practicing the skill of written communication on a regular basis is merely correlated to being more effective at communicating via the written word , then that 's your prerogative .
And for you grammar nazis out there , to frantically fret over split infinitives and to avoid prepositions to end your clauses with are practices just as arbitrary as choosing to spell 'later ' as 'l8r ' ( perhaps more so , as the latter at least has efficiency on its side ) .
Grammar is a social phenomenon , not a linguistic one .
Is you understanding what I be saying ?
The syntax is there , and that 's all that matters for effective communication ( for all you linguists , I freely admit that my grasp of AAVE is less than stellar ) .
The rest is fluorish ( I understand that speaking AAVE in , say , a job interview may be somewhat of a turn-off to potential employers , but that really is just a prejudice of the employers ) .
Alright , lecture over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTFA:Since relatively little is known about young people’s views about writing in the UK, the key
objectives of this survey were: to explore how much young people enjoy writing, what type of
writing they engage in, how good at writing they think they are and what they think about writing.
The survey wasn't meant to find out how good kids are at writing.
It was meant to find out if kids are engaging in writing.
The article points out that a vast majority of children ages 9-16 write regularly and that most enjoy the task when they can choose the topic.
The self-evaluation part that everyone seems to be denigrating is meant to highlight the fact that about half of the children surveyed have confidence in their writing skills.
Of course this doesn't necessarily mean that they're objectively good writers.
That's not the point of the study.
But it does mean that a majority of them are comfortable with writing, which is extremely important.
I know some of you are going to throw out the old hackneyed standby, "Correlation is not causation," and that's fine.
If you want to claim that practicing the skill of written communication on a regular basis is merely correlated to being more effective at communicating via the written word, then that's your prerogative.
And for you grammar nazis out there, to frantically fret over split infinitives and to avoid prepositions to end your clauses with are practices just as arbitrary as choosing to spell 'later' as 'l8r' (perhaps more so, as the latter at least has efficiency on its side).
Grammar is a social phenomenon, not a linguistic one.
Is you understanding what I be saying?
The syntax is there, and that's all that matters for effective communication (for all you linguists, I freely admit that my grasp of AAVE is less than stellar).
The rest is fluorish (I understand that speaking AAVE in, say, a job interview may be somewhat of a turn-off to potential employers, but that really is just a prejudice of the employers).
Alright, lecture over.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319498</id>
	<title>Re:Huge Fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259849280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah and they're even highlighting flaws in the system too!</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0keVkmnIsZE&amp;feature=related</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah and they 're even highlighting flaws in the system too ! http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 0keVkmnIsZE&amp;feature = related</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah and they're even highlighting flaws in the system too!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0keVkmnIsZE&amp;feature=related</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317552</id>
	<title>Re:Correlation is not causation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259839260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Neither the BBC article nor the researchers make this claim.</p></div><p>You should really try reading the BBC article entitled "Children who use technology are 'better writers'" with the first words being:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Children who blog, text or use social networking websites have better writing skills than those who do not, according to the National Literacy Trust.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Neither the BBC article nor the researchers make this claim.You should really try reading the BBC article entitled " Children who use technology are 'better writers ' " with the first words being : Children who blog , text or use social networking websites have better writing skills than those who do not , according to the National Literacy Trust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neither the BBC article nor the researchers make this claim.You should really try reading the BBC article entitled "Children who use technology are 'better writers'" with the first words being:Children who blog, text or use social networking websites have better writing skills than those who do not, according to the National Literacy Trust.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317378</id>
	<title>Re:Huge Fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259838720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, more like children using technology have bigger egos. Just look at the butchery of the English language on social networking sites.<br>Americans and Brits are particularly good at doing that to their own mother tongue, maybe because they don't have to think twice when using it.</p><p>They're = There = Their<br>You're = Your</p><p>Disgusting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , more like children using technology have bigger egos .
Just look at the butchery of the English language on social networking sites.Americans and Brits are particularly good at doing that to their own mother tongue , maybe because they do n't have to think twice when using it.They 're = There = TheirYou 're = YourDisgusting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, more like children using technology have bigger egos.
Just look at the butchery of the English language on social networking sites.Americans and Brits are particularly good at doing that to their own mother tongue, maybe because they don't have to think twice when using it.They're = There = TheirYou're = YourDisgusting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317322</id>
	<title>Re:Huge Fail</title>
	<author>schon</author>
	<datestamp>1259838480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tell me about it.. a self-selecting group of people grade themselves?   How on earth is that scientific?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell me about it.. a self-selecting group of people grade themselves ?
How on earth is that scientific ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell me about it.. a self-selecting group of people grade themselves?
How on earth is that scientific?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317272</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30324364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30320058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30324714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30326620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30321930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30320772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30320046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30323444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30321102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30323366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30321432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30322886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30324276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30323096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30321798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30327230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30320768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30321304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2157250_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2157250.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2157250.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2157250.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2157250.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30323366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30323444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2157250.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2157250.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2157250.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30327230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30324276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30321798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2157250.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2157250.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30321304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2157250.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2157250.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30326620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30324364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2157250.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2157250.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30324714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2157250.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317938
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30320772
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30321930
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30321432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319498
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317562
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30320058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317792
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30321102
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30320046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317592
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318144
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30323096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2157250.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30322886
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2157250.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30317396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30318776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30320768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2157250.30319844
</commentlist>
</conversation>
