<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_05_2312256</id>
	<title>Google Launches Dictionary, Drops Answers.com</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1260012780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:obsessivemathsfreak@NOsPAm.eircom.net" rel="nofollow">ObsessiveMathsFreak</a> writes <i>"Google has expanded its remit once again with the quiet <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/12/google-dictionary.html">launch of Google Dictionary</a>. Google word search definitions now redirect to <a href="http://www.google.com/dictionary">Google Dictionary</a> instead of to Google's long term thesaurus goto site, <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/divorce">Answers.com</a>, which is expected to take a serious hit in traffic as a result. Dictionary pages are noticeably more plain and faster loading than their Answers.com equivalents, and unusually feature web citations for the definitions of each word. This means that, <a href="//games.slashdot.org/story/05/05/28/2048245/w00t-is-3rd-Favorite-Non-Dictionary-Word">unlike most dictionaries</a>, Google considers <a href="http://www.google.ie/dictionary?aq=f&amp;langpair=en\%7Cen&amp;q=ginormous&amp;hl=en">ginormous</a> a word."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ObsessiveMathsFreak writes " Google has expanded its remit once again with the quiet launch of Google Dictionary .
Google word search definitions now redirect to Google Dictionary instead of to Google 's long term thesaurus goto site , Answers.com , which is expected to take a serious hit in traffic as a result .
Dictionary pages are noticeably more plain and faster loading than their Answers.com equivalents , and unusually feature web citations for the definitions of each word .
This means that , unlike most dictionaries , Google considers ginormous a word .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ObsessiveMathsFreak writes "Google has expanded its remit once again with the quiet launch of Google Dictionary.
Google word search definitions now redirect to Google Dictionary instead of to Google's long term thesaurus goto site, Answers.com, which is expected to take a serious hit in traffic as a result.
Dictionary pages are noticeably more plain and faster loading than their Answers.com equivalents, and unusually feature web citations for the definitions of each word.
This means that, unlike most dictionaries, Google considers ginormous a word.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339778</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>dov\_0</author>
	<datestamp>1260019740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that the really interesting thing is how they've integrated Google Translate into the drop down language list. Absolutely beautiful. Very useful. Nice work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that the really interesting thing is how they 've integrated Google Translate into the drop down language list .
Absolutely beautiful .
Very useful .
Nice work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that the really interesting thing is how they've integrated Google Translate into the drop down language list.
Absolutely beautiful.
Very useful.
Nice work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340924</id>
	<title>Re:It will do for now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260031740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And how, pray tell, does one speak sign language?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And how , pray tell , does one speak sign language ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how, pray tell, does one speak sign language?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341542</id>
	<title>Re:Wiktionary.org?</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1260041400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow. French people have a different word for everything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
French people have a different word for everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
French people have a different word for everything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339754</id>
	<title>huh?</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1260019500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Am I the only one to have the following three reactions?
</p><ol>
<li> I remember answers.com solely as one of those annoying sites that mirror's Wikipedia's content, polluting search results with fifty copies of the same WP article. It astonishes me to find out that Google has ever been associated with one of these things; they all strike me as sleazy attempts to sop up some ad revenue without actually making any positive contribution of their own. I would have expected Google to try to filter out such things, not to be associated with them.</li>
<li> Huh? What is a "Google word search definition?" Okay, click through to the LA times blog, which say, "Previously, the 'definition' button at the top right of all Google searches for words would direct users to entries on the Wikipedia-like Answers.com site. Now those links go to Google Dictionary, a less colorful, less cluttered interface." Double huh? Never noticed such a thing before. I did two Google searches on dictionary words just now, and neither one came up with a "'definition' button at the top right." I've never noticed one in the past, and I'm not seeing one now.</li>
<li> Aparently the OP doesn't know what a thesaurus is.</li>
</ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one to have the following three reactions ?
I remember answers.com solely as one of those annoying sites that mirror 's Wikipedia 's content , polluting search results with fifty copies of the same WP article .
It astonishes me to find out that Google has ever been associated with one of these things ; they all strike me as sleazy attempts to sop up some ad revenue without actually making any positive contribution of their own .
I would have expected Google to try to filter out such things , not to be associated with them .
Huh ? What is a " Google word search definition ?
" Okay , click through to the LA times blog , which say , " Previously , the 'definition ' button at the top right of all Google searches for words would direct users to entries on the Wikipedia-like Answers.com site .
Now those links go to Google Dictionary , a less colorful , less cluttered interface .
" Double huh ?
Never noticed such a thing before .
I did two Google searches on dictionary words just now , and neither one came up with a " 'definition ' button at the top right .
" I 've never noticed one in the past , and I 'm not seeing one now .
Aparently the OP does n't know what a thesaurus is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Am I the only one to have the following three reactions?
I remember answers.com solely as one of those annoying sites that mirror's Wikipedia's content, polluting search results with fifty copies of the same WP article.
It astonishes me to find out that Google has ever been associated with one of these things; they all strike me as sleazy attempts to sop up some ad revenue without actually making any positive contribution of their own.
I would have expected Google to try to filter out such things, not to be associated with them.
Huh? What is a "Google word search definition?
" Okay, click through to the LA times blog, which say, "Previously, the 'definition' button at the top right of all Google searches for words would direct users to entries on the Wikipedia-like Answers.com site.
Now those links go to Google Dictionary, a less colorful, less cluttered interface.
" Double huh?
Never noticed such a thing before.
I did two Google searches on dictionary words just now, and neither one came up with a "'definition' button at the top right.
" I've never noticed one in the past, and I'm not seeing one now.
Aparently the OP doesn't know what a thesaurus is.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340096</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260022620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally I have been using <a href="http://dictionary.com/" title="dictionary.com">Dictionary.com</a> [dictionary.com] for years now, got it incorporated with my dropdown list of search engines in Firefox to. Can't really see myself changing unless something drastic happens as Dictionary.com is plain, functional and provides the information without any hassle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I have been using Dictionary.com [ dictionary.com ] for years now , got it incorporated with my dropdown list of search engines in Firefox to .
Ca n't really see myself changing unless something drastic happens as Dictionary.com is plain , functional and provides the information without any hassle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I have been using Dictionary.com [dictionary.com] for years now, got it incorporated with my dropdown list of search engines in Firefox to.
Can't really see myself changing unless something drastic happens as Dictionary.com is plain, functional and provides the information without any hassle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340310</id>
	<title>A whole nother</title>
	<author>meheler</author>
	<datestamp>1260024720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Glad to see that "nother" still isn't a word, and that "irregardless" brings up the definition for "regardless" with a wikipedia entry explaining that "irregardless" is considered incorrect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glad to see that " nother " still is n't a word , and that " irregardless " brings up the definition for " regardless " with a wikipedia entry explaining that " irregardless " is considered incorrect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glad to see that "nother" still isn't a word, and that "irregardless" brings up the definition for "regardless" with a wikipedia entry explaining that "irregardless" is considered incorrect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340726</id>
	<title>Re:Wiktionary.org?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260029160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Control, reliability, being able to create your own API and control that, etc.  This is definitely something that would be integrated into Google's other services, and already can use Google Translate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Control , reliability , being able to create your own API and control that , etc .
This is definitely something that would be integrated into Google 's other services , and already can use Google Translate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Control, reliability, being able to create your own API and control that, etc.
This is definitely something that would be integrated into Google's other services, and already can use Google Translate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30343416</id>
	<title>Hey Google!</title>
	<author>ResidentSourcerer</author>
	<datestamp>1260117780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I played with the dictionary.  Not bad.  I like the multiple definitions, and possible links to chase down.</p><p>But what I *really* want is a 'distinctive thesaurus' -- a dictionary that distinguishes between synonyms so that you can get closer to the perfect word.</p><p>As an example,</p><p>Consider the differences between</p><p>Irony</p><p>Sarcasm</p><p>Sardony (Ok sardonic)</p><p>Facetiousness</p><p>All of them involve some degree of humour by stating things as they aren't.</p><p>If I look up sarcasm on thesaurus.com I get a longer list, yielding words that range from near to distant in their connotations.</p><p>acrimony, aspersion, banter, bitterness, burlesque, causticness, censure, comeback, contempt, corrosiveness, criticism, cut*, cynicism, derision, dig*, disparagement, flouting, invective, irony, lampooning, mockery, mordancy, put-down, raillery, rancor, ridicule, satire, scoffing, scorn, sharpness, sneering, superciliousness, wisecrack.</p><p>Yes creating my own distinctions is possible.  So is writing my own definition possible.  But trying to define a word from my own experience with a word is hard, and frought with potential pitfalls where my mental model of the word world is defective, so even harder is it to define the differences between closely allied words.</p><p>Anybody know of an online thesaurus that distinguishes between synonyms?</p><p>My own crack at the above four.</p><p>Irony applies to both statements and description. In events has a perverseness to it, poetic justice.  In statements it has has less connotation of derision and mocking.</p><p>Sardony has a bitter, derisive quality to it.  The object of sardony is most often the speaker, less often the world generally.  Self-deprecating on steroids.</p><p>Sarcasm is a contrary statement intended to hurt someone else, to express contempt.</p><p>Facetiousness is similar to sarcasm, but humour is it's main goal.  There is no intent to hurt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I played with the dictionary .
Not bad .
I like the multiple definitions , and possible links to chase down.But what I * really * want is a 'distinctive thesaurus ' -- a dictionary that distinguishes between synonyms so that you can get closer to the perfect word.As an example,Consider the differences betweenIronySarcasmSardony ( Ok sardonic ) FacetiousnessAll of them involve some degree of humour by stating things as they are n't.If I look up sarcasm on thesaurus.com I get a longer list , yielding words that range from near to distant in their connotations.acrimony , aspersion , banter , bitterness , burlesque , causticness , censure , comeback , contempt , corrosiveness , criticism , cut * , cynicism , derision , dig * , disparagement , flouting , invective , irony , lampooning , mockery , mordancy , put-down , raillery , rancor , ridicule , satire , scoffing , scorn , sharpness , sneering , superciliousness , wisecrack.Yes creating my own distinctions is possible .
So is writing my own definition possible .
But trying to define a word from my own experience with a word is hard , and frought with potential pitfalls where my mental model of the word world is defective , so even harder is it to define the differences between closely allied words.Anybody know of an online thesaurus that distinguishes between synonyms ? My own crack at the above four.Irony applies to both statements and description .
In events has a perverseness to it , poetic justice .
In statements it has has less connotation of derision and mocking.Sardony has a bitter , derisive quality to it .
The object of sardony is most often the speaker , less often the world generally .
Self-deprecating on steroids.Sarcasm is a contrary statement intended to hurt someone else , to express contempt.Facetiousness is similar to sarcasm , but humour is it 's main goal .
There is no intent to hurt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I played with the dictionary.
Not bad.
I like the multiple definitions, and possible links to chase down.But what I *really* want is a 'distinctive thesaurus' -- a dictionary that distinguishes between synonyms so that you can get closer to the perfect word.As an example,Consider the differences betweenIronySarcasmSardony (Ok sardonic)FacetiousnessAll of them involve some degree of humour by stating things as they aren't.If I look up sarcasm on thesaurus.com I get a longer list, yielding words that range from near to distant in their connotations.acrimony, aspersion, banter, bitterness, burlesque, causticness, censure, comeback, contempt, corrosiveness, criticism, cut*, cynicism, derision, dig*, disparagement, flouting, invective, irony, lampooning, mockery, mordancy, put-down, raillery, rancor, ridicule, satire, scoffing, scorn, sharpness, sneering, superciliousness, wisecrack.Yes creating my own distinctions is possible.
So is writing my own definition possible.
But trying to define a word from my own experience with a word is hard, and frought with potential pitfalls where my mental model of the word world is defective, so even harder is it to define the differences between closely allied words.Anybody know of an online thesaurus that distinguishes between synonyms?My own crack at the above four.Irony applies to both statements and description.
In events has a perverseness to it, poetic justice.
In statements it has has less connotation of derision and mocking.Sardony has a bitter, derisive quality to it.
The object of sardony is most often the speaker, less often the world generally.
Self-deprecating on steroids.Sarcasm is a contrary statement intended to hurt someone else, to express contempt.Facetiousness is similar to sarcasm, but humour is it's main goal.
There is no intent to hurt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342348</id>
	<title>Re:huh?</title>
	<author>complete loony</author>
	<datestamp>1260101040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For a very long time if you typed in "define:term" in any search request you'd get results that look pretty similar to what you now get in dictionary for their web terms. But no, I've never noticed a link or button anywhere either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For a very long time if you typed in " define : term " in any search request you 'd get results that look pretty similar to what you now get in dictionary for their web terms .
But no , I 've never noticed a link or button anywhere either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a very long time if you typed in "define:term" in any search request you'd get results that look pretty similar to what you now get in dictionary for their web terms.
But no, I've never noticed a link or button anywhere either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339670</id>
	<title>Doesn't "define:" already work fine?</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1260018780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is there something I'm missing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is there something I 'm missing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is there something I'm missing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30345646</id>
	<title>Re:Urban Dictionary and so on</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1260092280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're using Urban Dictionary to look up words that are already part of the language, are products, or ask questions about medical issues, you're doing it wrong. It's a dictionary for slang.</p><p>You might as well slag of Slashdot, because of the equally uninformed opinions some people have on certain OSs here. Or slag off dictionaries, because they don't tell you the meaning of slang words not yet in widespread use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're using Urban Dictionary to look up words that are already part of the language , are products , or ask questions about medical issues , you 're doing it wrong .
It 's a dictionary for slang.You might as well slag of Slashdot , because of the equally uninformed opinions some people have on certain OSs here .
Or slag off dictionaries , because they do n't tell you the meaning of slang words not yet in widespread use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're using Urban Dictionary to look up words that are already part of the language, are products, or ask questions about medical issues, you're doing it wrong.
It's a dictionary for slang.You might as well slag of Slashdot, because of the equally uninformed opinions some people have on certain OSs here.
Or slag off dictionaries, because they don't tell you the meaning of slang words not yet in widespread use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342370</id>
	<title>Definition link found</title>
	<author>smithfarm</author>
	<datestamp>1260101640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had never seen it before, either, and I had the same reaction as you ("Huh?") to the term "Google word search definition". But I found it \_is\_ there, just very small and easy to miss.</p><p>1. Go to Google<br>2. Type in a single word (I typed "retch")<br>3. In the bar just above where the search results start, on the far right, I see this:<br>Results 1 - 10 of about 311,000 for retch [definition]. (0.34 seconds)</p><p>The word "definition" in brackets is a link to Google Dictionary's page on "retch".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had never seen it before , either , and I had the same reaction as you ( " Huh ?
" ) to the term " Google word search definition " .
But I found it \ _is \ _ there , just very small and easy to miss.1 .
Go to Google2 .
Type in a single word ( I typed " retch " ) 3 .
In the bar just above where the search results start , on the far right , I see this : Results 1 - 10 of about 311,000 for retch [ definition ] .
( 0.34 seconds ) The word " definition " in brackets is a link to Google Dictionary 's page on " retch " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had never seen it before, either, and I had the same reaction as you ("Huh?
") to the term "Google word search definition".
But I found it \_is\_ there, just very small and easy to miss.1.
Go to Google2.
Type in a single word (I typed "retch")3.
In the bar just above where the search results start, on the far right, I see this:Results 1 - 10 of about 311,000 for retch [definition].
(0.34 seconds)The word "definition" in brackets is a link to Google Dictionary's page on "retch".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342586</id>
	<title>pronunciation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260106140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's odd Google lists as the only pronunciation of Gigabyte a hard "G", like in giggle, when that pronunciation is only a result of mispronunciation started in the 1990's (the root is the same as gigantic, soft "g"), AND YET they don't list the common mispronunciation of "nuclear." Is Google dictionary what they want the language to be instead of what researchers have found it is? Did the CRU researchers find new jobs at google or something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's odd Google lists as the only pronunciation of Gigabyte a hard " G " , like in giggle , when that pronunciation is only a result of mispronunciation started in the 1990 's ( the root is the same as gigantic , soft " g " ) , AND YET they do n't list the common mispronunciation of " nuclear .
" Is Google dictionary what they want the language to be instead of what researchers have found it is ?
Did the CRU researchers find new jobs at google or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's odd Google lists as the only pronunciation of Gigabyte a hard "G", like in giggle, when that pronunciation is only a result of mispronunciation started in the 1990's (the root is the same as gigantic, soft "g"), AND YET they don't list the common mispronunciation of "nuclear.
" Is Google dictionary what they want the language to be instead of what researchers have found it is?
Did the CRU researchers find new jobs at google or something?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340874</id>
	<title>Google now defines your world.</title>
	<author>earls</author>
	<datestamp>1260031200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, so that's how "Internet" got defined as "= Google".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , so that 's how " Internet " got defined as " = Google " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, so that's how "Internet" got defined as "= Google".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340226</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260023760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>M-W.com used to be a really fun site. They have/had Word for the Wise, and Word of the Day. These sections used to be filled with amateur comedy mixed with historic facts. These days they aren't funny at all and seem to have less effort put into the historic fact finding of the words.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>M-W.com used to be a really fun site .
They have/had Word for the Wise , and Word of the Day .
These sections used to be filled with amateur comedy mixed with historic facts .
These days they are n't funny at all and seem to have less effort put into the historic fact finding of the words .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>M-W.com used to be a really fun site.
They have/had Word for the Wise, and Word of the Day.
These sections used to be filled with amateur comedy mixed with historic facts.
These days they aren't funny at all and seem to have less effort put into the historic fact finding of the words.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340506</id>
	<title>Re:I don't care about "most dictionaries"...</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1260026580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've people use it in speech and writing and others generally know what it means, then it's a word.  I think even the people who work on the OED have said that dictionaries are descriptive, no prescriptive.  The intention is to maintain a catalog of words that are commonly accepted and in use, not to tell you which words are acceptable.  Oxford is not the Academie Francaise.
</p><p>All words are made-up words.  There are words that I don't like and words that I think are stupid, and plenty of new words that I hope don't continue to be used.  Unfortunately, they're still words.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've people use it in speech and writing and others generally know what it means , then it 's a word .
I think even the people who work on the OED have said that dictionaries are descriptive , no prescriptive .
The intention is to maintain a catalog of words that are commonly accepted and in use , not to tell you which words are acceptable .
Oxford is not the Academie Francaise .
All words are made-up words .
There are words that I do n't like and words that I think are stupid , and plenty of new words that I hope do n't continue to be used .
Unfortunately , they 're still words .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've people use it in speech and writing and others generally know what it means, then it's a word.
I think even the people who work on the OED have said that dictionaries are descriptive, no prescriptive.
The intention is to maintain a catalog of words that are commonly accepted and in use, not to tell you which words are acceptable.
Oxford is not the Academie Francaise.
All words are made-up words.
There are words that I don't like and words that I think are stupid, and plenty of new words that I hope don't continue to be used.
Unfortunately, they're still words.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339614</id>
	<title>define: word</title>
	<author>at\_slashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1260018240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't they add the results to "define: word" search in Google?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they add the results to " define : word " search in Google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they add the results to "define: word" search in Google?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30343158</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1260114720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just stating the obvious - If Ginormous wasn't a word no one here would understand it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just stating the obvious - If Ginormous was n't a word no one here would understand it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just stating the obvious - If Ginormous wasn't a word no one here would understand it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339704</id>
	<title>Still needs work</title>
	<author>tuxedobob</author>
	<datestamp>1260019140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, so, after looking it up, I still don't know how to say "ginormous". (Not that I plan on using it any time soon anyway.) Their pronunciation guide could stand to also include the guide I've seen in dictionaries for decades, rather than an unnecessary international guide when I'm looking up an English word.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , so , after looking it up , I still do n't know how to say " ginormous " .
( Not that I plan on using it any time soon anyway .
) Their pronunciation guide could stand to also include the guide I 've seen in dictionaries for decades , rather than an unnecessary international guide when I 'm looking up an English word .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, so, after looking it up, I still don't know how to say "ginormous".
(Not that I plan on using it any time soon anyway.
) Their pronunciation guide could stand to also include the guide I've seen in dictionaries for decades, rather than an unnecessary international guide when I'm looking up an English word.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340342</id>
	<title>Re:huh?</title>
	<author>BeanThere</author>
	<datestamp>1260025080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been using the 'definition' link *very* regularly for many years<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it's been my primary dictionary - Firefox, Ctrl+K, enter word, and click 'definition'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using the 'definition ' link * very * regularly for many years ... it 's been my primary dictionary - Firefox , Ctrl + K , enter word , and click 'definition' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using the 'definition' link *very* regularly for many years ... it's been my primary dictionary - Firefox, Ctrl+K, enter word, and click 'definition'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339604</id>
	<title>why?</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1260018120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is one of those changes that makes me lose confidence in Google.  It seems that Google wants to control all the resources instead of being part of an internet.  As if it is playing the zero sum game of war rather than the non-zero sum game that allows businesses to exist and grow together.
<p>
By doing this, Google may have wrested control over third parties, but has significantly degraded the user experience.  Prior to this, each word would have a hyperlink to a definition.  Now it appears that one has a link to "definition" for one word.  Furthermore, in my sampling the definitions are very basic and not of competitive quality.  For instance, the word cricket has for the first definition the sport, the second a slang use, and then finally a first grade definition as an insect.  No etymology.  No context.
</p><p>
I can only imagine they are doing this to in some way differentiate themselves from Bing, which could also use freeonlinedictionary or the like.  Unfortunately for Google, MS has encata, which tends to not have slightly more sophisticated definitions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of those changes that makes me lose confidence in Google .
It seems that Google wants to control all the resources instead of being part of an internet .
As if it is playing the zero sum game of war rather than the non-zero sum game that allows businesses to exist and grow together .
By doing this , Google may have wrested control over third parties , but has significantly degraded the user experience .
Prior to this , each word would have a hyperlink to a definition .
Now it appears that one has a link to " definition " for one word .
Furthermore , in my sampling the definitions are very basic and not of competitive quality .
For instance , the word cricket has for the first definition the sport , the second a slang use , and then finally a first grade definition as an insect .
No etymology .
No context .
I can only imagine they are doing this to in some way differentiate themselves from Bing , which could also use freeonlinedictionary or the like .
Unfortunately for Google , MS has encata , which tends to not have slightly more sophisticated definitions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of those changes that makes me lose confidence in Google.
It seems that Google wants to control all the resources instead of being part of an internet.
As if it is playing the zero sum game of war rather than the non-zero sum game that allows businesses to exist and grow together.
By doing this, Google may have wrested control over third parties, but has significantly degraded the user experience.
Prior to this, each word would have a hyperlink to a definition.
Now it appears that one has a link to "definition" for one word.
Furthermore, in my sampling the definitions are very basic and not of competitive quality.
For instance, the word cricket has for the first definition the sport, the second a slang use, and then finally a first grade definition as an insect.
No etymology.
No context.
I can only imagine they are doing this to in some way differentiate themselves from Bing, which could also use freeonlinedictionary or the like.
Unfortunately for Google, MS has encata, which tends to not have slightly more sophisticated definitions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339776</id>
	<title>Re:It will do for now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260019740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>heast hoits mei du saubeidl --- German has too many dialects for one dictionary<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)<br>That's a good method of not getting indexed. Write in dialect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>heast hoits mei du saubeidl --- German has too many dialects for one dictionary : - ) That 's a good method of not getting indexed .
Write in dialect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>heast hoits mei du saubeidl --- German has too many dialects for one dictionary :-)That's a good method of not getting indexed.
Write in dialect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339950</id>
	<title>Re:When google finally presses the evil button...</title>
	<author>realityimpaired</author>
	<datestamp>1260021120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reach for the tinfoil hat indeed...</p><p>The reason they come out with new dictionary versions every year is that new words are added to the dictionary, and sometimes old words are removed, or have their definitions changed. I don't see any reason that online shouldn't also follow this trend, but the advantage to an online format is that the change can happen relatively quickly, once it's accepted by the editor, whereas some people still use decades-old versions of the printed dictionary and don't see a reason to buy a new copy every couple of years.</p><p>And there are some *print* dictionaries that include "ginormous" in the list of words. Language, by definition, is fluid. It changes over time, and the dictionary needs to change with it. "Ginormous" is a word that has made it into the popular vernacular, and it has a generally accepted meaning as a portmanteau of the words "giant" and "enormous". As such, it belongs in the dictionary, and it's only a matter of time before the remaining editions of the dictionary add the word. A language isn't defined by the dictionary, but rather, the dictionary is defined by the language. (it's already in the <a href="http://www.askoxford.com/concise\_oed/ginormous?view=uk" title="askoxford.com">Oxford English Dictionary</a> [askoxford.com] as well as the <a href="http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=3&amp;reversed=False&amp;action=define&amp;homonym=0&amp;text=ginormous" title="collinslanguage.com">Collins Dictionary</a> [collinslanguage.com], and <a href="http://m-w.com/dictionary/ginormous" title="m-w.com">Merriam-Webster</a> [m-w.com].)</p><p>Obligatory disclaimer: One of my two major fields of study in my undergrad was applied linguistics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reach for the tinfoil hat indeed...The reason they come out with new dictionary versions every year is that new words are added to the dictionary , and sometimes old words are removed , or have their definitions changed .
I do n't see any reason that online should n't also follow this trend , but the advantage to an online format is that the change can happen relatively quickly , once it 's accepted by the editor , whereas some people still use decades-old versions of the printed dictionary and do n't see a reason to buy a new copy every couple of years.And there are some * print * dictionaries that include " ginormous " in the list of words .
Language , by definition , is fluid .
It changes over time , and the dictionary needs to change with it .
" Ginormous " is a word that has made it into the popular vernacular , and it has a generally accepted meaning as a portmanteau of the words " giant " and " enormous " .
As such , it belongs in the dictionary , and it 's only a matter of time before the remaining editions of the dictionary add the word .
A language is n't defined by the dictionary , but rather , the dictionary is defined by the language .
( it 's already in the Oxford English Dictionary [ askoxford.com ] as well as the Collins Dictionary [ collinslanguage.com ] , and Merriam-Webster [ m-w.com ] .
) Obligatory disclaimer : One of my two major fields of study in my undergrad was applied linguistics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reach for the tinfoil hat indeed...The reason they come out with new dictionary versions every year is that new words are added to the dictionary, and sometimes old words are removed, or have their definitions changed.
I don't see any reason that online shouldn't also follow this trend, but the advantage to an online format is that the change can happen relatively quickly, once it's accepted by the editor, whereas some people still use decades-old versions of the printed dictionary and don't see a reason to buy a new copy every couple of years.And there are some *print* dictionaries that include "ginormous" in the list of words.
Language, by definition, is fluid.
It changes over time, and the dictionary needs to change with it.
"Ginormous" is a word that has made it into the popular vernacular, and it has a generally accepted meaning as a portmanteau of the words "giant" and "enormous".
As such, it belongs in the dictionary, and it's only a matter of time before the remaining editions of the dictionary add the word.
A language isn't defined by the dictionary, but rather, the dictionary is defined by the language.
(it's already in the Oxford English Dictionary [askoxford.com] as well as the Collins Dictionary [collinslanguage.com], and Merriam-Webster [m-w.com].
)Obligatory disclaimer: One of my two major fields of study in my undergrad was applied linguistics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342532</id>
	<title>Re:Wiktionary.org?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260104640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google dictionary references and aggregates definitions from Wiktionary. It's a dictionary aggregator, not a standalone dictionary in itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google dictionary references and aggregates definitions from Wiktionary .
It 's a dictionary aggregator , not a standalone dictionary in itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google dictionary references and aggregates definitions from Wiktionary.
It's a dictionary aggregator, not a standalone dictionary in itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339780</id>
	<title>Re:Google Dictionary?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1260019800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"very unhappy"?</p><p>Really?</p><p>Do you realize you can still use it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" very unhappy " ? Really ? Do you realize you can still use it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"very unhappy"?Really?Do you realize you can still use it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341782</id>
	<title>Old?</title>
	<author>fafalone</author>
	<datestamp>1260132840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless I'm missing something, there seems to be extremely little difference between this new service and what Google has displayed when you use define:whatever as a search query for as long back as I can remember.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless I 'm missing something , there seems to be extremely little difference between this new service and what Google has displayed when you use define : whatever as a search query for as long back as I can remember .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless I'm missing something, there seems to be extremely little difference between this new service and what Google has displayed when you use define:whatever as a search query for as long back as I can remember.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341454</id>
	<title>Re:huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260040020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>google "define: thesaurus"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>google " define : thesaurus "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>google "define: thesaurus"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340036</id>
	<title>Re:Google Dictionary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260022020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?  The most useful feature you talked about there (at least in my opinion) is the pronunciation, which Google has.  See the little speaker icon next to pronunciations? Click it!  It even has a British version and US version for words pronounced differently!</p><p>As for antonyms, synonyms, etc, yeah, that would be great, but this is Google Dictionary, not Google Thesaurus<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
The most useful feature you talked about there ( at least in my opinion ) is the pronunciation , which Google has .
See the little speaker icon next to pronunciations ?
Click it !
It even has a British version and US version for words pronounced differently ! As for antonyms , synonyms , etc , yeah , that would be great , but this is Google Dictionary , not Google Thesaurus : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
The most useful feature you talked about there (at least in my opinion) is the pronunciation, which Google has.
See the little speaker icon next to pronunciations?
Click it!
It even has a British version and US version for words pronounced differently!As for antonyms, synonyms, etc, yeah, that would be great, but this is Google Dictionary, not Google Thesaurus :D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341512</id>
	<title>Help!</title>
	<author>cyberzephyr</author>
	<datestamp>1260040980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where will i find out what EVOO is?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where will i find out what EVOO is ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where will i find out what EVOO is?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342214</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1260098640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ginormous is a word, but I'm not sure it is an English word.  It has been in the Scots language for many years, certainly for as long as I've been old enough to speak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ginormous is a word , but I 'm not sure it is an English word .
It has been in the Scots language for many years , certainly for as long as I 've been old enough to speak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ginormous is a word, but I'm not sure it is an English word.
It has been in the Scots language for many years, certainly for as long as I've been old enough to speak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342364</id>
	<title>Re:Google Dictionary?</title>
	<author>iamapizza</author>
	<datestamp>1260101400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know, I've been listening to the female US speaker say it to me all day long...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know , I 've been listening to the female US speaker say it to me all day long.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know, I've been listening to the female US speaker say it to me all day long...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339936</id>
	<title>Re:When google finally presses the evil button...</title>
	<author>amRadioHed</author>
	<datestamp>1260020940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you look at the whole page of results from google? It has the excrement definition in the "related phrases" and "web definitions" sections.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you look at the whole page of results from google ?
It has the excrement definition in the " related phrases " and " web definitions " sections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you look at the whole page of results from google?
It has the excrement definition in the "related phrases" and "web definitions" sections.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339550</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260017580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can write it and you can say it...those are the only things that make it a "word". If you use a sentence with ginormous in it I will look at you like the idiot you are. I will probably verbally abuse you as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can write it and you can say it...those are the only things that make it a " word " .
If you use a sentence with ginormous in it I will look at you like the idiot you are .
I will probably verbally abuse you as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can write it and you can say it...those are the only things that make it a "word".
If you use a sentence with ginormous in it I will look at you like the idiot you are.
I will probably verbally abuse you as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30343884</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1260122160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed, this will replace my past use of <a href="http://dict.org/" title="dict.org">dict.org</a> [dict.org]. Decently-featured ad-free site using the open dict format, but too big of a page header, and the URLs were overly long in comparison:

<p> <a href="http://dict.org/bin/Dict?Strategy=*&amp;Form=Dict1&amp;Database=*&amp;Query=bloated" title="dict.org">http://dict.org/bin/Dict?Strategy=*&amp;Form=Dict1&amp;Database=*&amp;Query=bloated</a> [dict.org]

</p><p>now versus

</p><p> <a href="http://google.com/dictionary?langpair=en\%7Cen&amp;q=bloated" title="google.com">http://google.com/dictionary?langpair=en|en&amp;q=bloated</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , this will replace my past use of dict.org [ dict.org ] .
Decently-featured ad-free site using the open dict format , but too big of a page header , and the URLs were overly long in comparison : http : //dict.org/bin/Dict ? Strategy = * &amp;Form = Dict1&amp;Database = * &amp;Query = bloated [ dict.org ] now versus http : //google.com/dictionary ? langpair = en | en&amp;q = bloated [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, this will replace my past use of dict.org [dict.org].
Decently-featured ad-free site using the open dict format, but too big of a page header, and the URLs were overly long in comparison:

 http://dict.org/bin/Dict?Strategy=*&amp;Form=Dict1&amp;Database=*&amp;Query=bloated [dict.org]

now versus

 http://google.com/dictionary?langpair=en|en&amp;q=bloated [google.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341614</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>mqduck</author>
	<datestamp>1260042840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'Ginormous' is in that gray area between "real" word and slang. But I was really surprised to discover just now that 'humongous' is considered a slang word, according to Miriam-Webster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Ginormous ' is in that gray area between " real " word and slang .
But I was really surprised to discover just now that 'humongous ' is considered a slang word , according to Miriam-Webster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Ginormous' is in that gray area between "real" word and slang.
But I was really surprised to discover just now that 'humongous' is considered a slang word, according to Miriam-Webster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340250</id>
	<title>Interesting definition of hacker</title>
	<author>onkelringnes</author>
	<datestamp>1260024060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. A computer hacker is someone who tries to break into computer systems, especially in order to get secret information. <br>
2. A computer hacker is someone who uses a computer a lot, especially so much that they have no time to do anything else.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D <br>

(The smiley was on me though)</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
A computer hacker is someone who tries to break into computer systems , especially in order to get secret information .
2. A computer hacker is someone who uses a computer a lot , especially so much that they have no time to do anything else .
: D ( The smiley was on me though )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
A computer hacker is someone who tries to break into computer systems, especially in order to get secret information.
2. A computer hacker is someone who uses a computer a lot, especially so much that they have no time to do anything else.
:D 

(The smiley was on me though)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341990</id>
	<title>Mozilla Search Plugin for Google Dictionary</title>
	<author>esfandia</author>
	<datestamp>1260094260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just created and submitted a Search Plugin for Google dictionary, but it's probably going to stay in the Mozilla Add-on sandbox until it gets a few reviews. I don't know if you need to be logged on to the add-on web site ( <a href="http://addons.mozilla.org/" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">http://addons.mozilla.org/</a> [mozilla.org] ) to see it, review it or use it.  Enjoy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just created and submitted a Search Plugin for Google dictionary , but it 's probably going to stay in the Mozilla Add-on sandbox until it gets a few reviews .
I do n't know if you need to be logged on to the add-on web site ( http : //addons.mozilla.org/ [ mozilla.org ] ) to see it , review it or use it .
Enjoy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just created and submitted a Search Plugin for Google dictionary, but it's probably going to stay in the Mozilla Add-on sandbox until it gets a few reviews.
I don't know if you need to be logged on to the add-on web site ( http://addons.mozilla.org/ [mozilla.org] ) to see it, review it or use it.
Enjoy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340796</id>
	<title>thIs FP f0r GNAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260030120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Bunch of ga7 negros Declined in market</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bunch of ga7 negros Declined in market [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bunch of ga7 negros Declined in market [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340156</id>
	<title>Re:why?</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1260023040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is one of those changes that makes me lose confidence in Google.  It seems that Google wants to control all the resources instead of being part of an internet.</p></div><p>Eh?  It's still pulling its stuff from the internet.  It's just cut out the useless middleman.  Instead of linking to another site that just pulls its info from other sites, adding no value of its own, just aggregating that info into one (cluttered, poorly formatted) page, Google now links directly to those other sites and presents the info much more cleanly.  It's really what they should have done from the start, this being exactly what Google has done with its core service (search) from the get-go.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of those changes that makes me lose confidence in Google .
It seems that Google wants to control all the resources instead of being part of an internet.Eh ?
It 's still pulling its stuff from the internet .
It 's just cut out the useless middleman .
Instead of linking to another site that just pulls its info from other sites , adding no value of its own , just aggregating that info into one ( cluttered , poorly formatted ) page , Google now links directly to those other sites and presents the info much more cleanly .
It 's really what they should have done from the start , this being exactly what Google has done with its core service ( search ) from the get-go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of those changes that makes me lose confidence in Google.
It seems that Google wants to control all the resources instead of being part of an internet.Eh?
It's still pulling its stuff from the internet.
It's just cut out the useless middleman.
Instead of linking to another site that just pulls its info from other sites, adding no value of its own, just aggregating that info into one (cluttered, poorly formatted) page, Google now links directly to those other sites and presents the info much more cleanly.
It's really what they should have done from the start, this being exactly what Google has done with its core service (search) from the get-go.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342724</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>Martin Spamer</author>
	<datestamp>1260109080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Ginormous IS a word. It's just a relatively new word.</i></p><p>That would make it a <a href="http://www.google.ie/dictionary?aq=f&amp;langpair=en\%7Cen&amp;q=neologism&amp;hl=en" title="google.ie">neologism</a> [google.ie], a newly invented word, which is also a neologism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ginormous IS a word .
It 's just a relatively new word.That would make it a neologism [ google.ie ] , a newly invented word , which is also a neologism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ginormous IS a word.
It's just a relatively new word.That would make it a neologism [google.ie], a newly invented word, which is also a neologism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30350732</id>
	<title>use define: in Google query</title>
	<author>dr\_blurb</author>
	<datestamp>1260181740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
For the longest time I have been using<br>

define:&lt;word&gt;<br>

on Google. Try it. Make sure you put the colon.
<br>

For example:<br>

<a href="http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;q=define\%3Ahadron&amp;btnG=Google+Search&amp;meta=&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=" title="google.co.uk" rel="nofollow">define:hadron</a> [google.co.uk] <br>

<a href="http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;q=define\%3Acompunction&amp;btnG=Google+Search&amp;meta=&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=" title="google.co.uk" rel="nofollow">define:compunction</a> [google.co.uk] <br>

etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the longest time I have been using define : on Google .
Try it .
Make sure you put the colon .
For example : define : hadron [ google.co.uk ] define : compunction [ google.co.uk ] etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
For the longest time I have been using

define:

on Google.
Try it.
Make sure you put the colon.
For example:

define:hadron [google.co.uk] 

define:compunction [google.co.uk] 

etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341252</id>
	<title>Re:Still needs work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260036720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Click on the speaker icons next to the pronunciation guides to hear the words spoken...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Click on the speaker icons next to the pronunciation guides to hear the words spoken.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Click on the speaker icons next to the pronunciation guides to hear the words spoken...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340802</id>
	<title>Where does Google get their definitions?</title>
	<author>HockeyPuck</author>
	<datestamp>1260030240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did they come up with their own definitions for all these words?  Did they "scrape" someone else's dictionary? Or pay someone for their content?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did they come up with their own definitions for all these words ?
Did they " scrape " someone else 's dictionary ?
Or pay someone for their content ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did they come up with their own definitions for all these words?
Did they "scrape" someone else's dictionary?
Or pay someone for their content?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339782</id>
	<title>Re:When google finally presses the evil button...</title>
	<author>Blue Stone</author>
	<datestamp>1260019800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another word not in there is "poop", synonymous with poo, bot unlisted as another word for faeces.</p><p>Compare Google Dictionary's result: <a href="http://www.google.co.uk/dictionary?aq=f&amp;langpair=en" title="google.co.uk">http://www.google.co.uk/dictionary?aq=f&amp;langpair=en</a> [google.co.uk]|en&amp;hl=en&amp;q=poop</p><p>which merely lists poop deck, with Answes.com's: <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/poop" title="answers.com">http://www.answers.com/topic/poop</a> [answers.com]</p><p>which is comprehensive and exactly what you'd expect from a dictionary.</p><p>I'd say Google fails pretty badly on this (relatively childish) example and isn't up to the job (or should that be jobbie).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another word not in there is " poop " , synonymous with poo , bot unlisted as another word for faeces.Compare Google Dictionary 's result : http : //www.google.co.uk/dictionary ? aq = f&amp;langpair = en [ google.co.uk ] | en&amp;hl = en&amp;q = poopwhich merely lists poop deck , with Answes.com 's : http : //www.answers.com/topic/poop [ answers.com ] which is comprehensive and exactly what you 'd expect from a dictionary.I 'd say Google fails pretty badly on this ( relatively childish ) example and is n't up to the job ( or should that be jobbie ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another word not in there is "poop", synonymous with poo, bot unlisted as another word for faeces.Compare Google Dictionary's result: http://www.google.co.uk/dictionary?aq=f&amp;langpair=en [google.co.uk]|en&amp;hl=en&amp;q=poopwhich merely lists poop deck, with Answes.com's: http://www.answers.com/topic/poop [answers.com]which is comprehensive and exactly what you'd expect from a dictionary.I'd say Google fails pretty badly on this (relatively childish) example and isn't up to the job (or should that be jobbie).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341232</id>
	<title>Nobody has mentioned Wiktionary because it sucks.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260036540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia sites bear the same problem: They're sourced to non-experts, run by people with no administrative experience, and have zero quality control other than obsessive teenagers blocking each other for perceived breakages of obscure MMORPG rules.</p><p>In short: Ask <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit\_x.htm" title="usatoday.com" rel="nofollow">John Seigenthaler</a> [usatoday.com] and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/technology/05wikipedia.html" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">Essjay</a> [nytimes.com] why Wikimedia-related sites suck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia sites bear the same problem : They 're sourced to non-experts , run by people with no administrative experience , and have zero quality control other than obsessive teenagers blocking each other for perceived breakages of obscure MMORPG rules.In short : Ask John Seigenthaler [ usatoday.com ] and Essjay [ nytimes.com ] why Wikimedia-related sites suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia sites bear the same problem: They're sourced to non-experts, run by people with no administrative experience, and have zero quality control other than obsessive teenagers blocking each other for perceived breakages of obscure MMORPG rules.In short: Ask John Seigenthaler [usatoday.com] and Essjay [nytimes.com] why Wikimedia-related sites suck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339980</id>
	<title>sweet ... new api</title>
	<author>ubrkl</author>
	<datestamp>1260021420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hopefully this means a new API to go with the dictionary. API's are usually what I look forward to the most from these google launches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully this means a new API to go with the dictionary .
API 's are usually what I look forward to the most from these google launches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully this means a new API to go with the dictionary.
API's are usually what I look forward to the most from these google launches.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340010</id>
	<title>International Phonetic Alphabet -- one step closer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260021780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But what is with Google's pronunciation/phonetic spelling guide?</p><p>ginormous<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/danms/ DJ listen<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/-nrm-/ DJ US listen<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/da'nrms/ KK US</p><p>It follows the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International\_Phonetic\_Alphabet" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">International Phonetic Alphabet</a> [wikipedia.org], and I for one, don't like it.  It's different.  It's change.  It's communism.  I think it leads us one step closer to total Islamohitlerobamification.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But what is with Google 's pronunciation/phonetic spelling guide ? ginormous /danms/ DJ listen /-nrm-/ DJ US listen /da'nrms/ KK USIt follows the International Phonetic Alphabet [ wikipedia.org ] , and I for one , do n't like it .
It 's different .
It 's change .
It 's communism .
I think it leads us one step closer to total Islamohitlerobamification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what is with Google's pronunciation/phonetic spelling guide?ginormous /danms/ DJ listen /-nrm-/ DJ US listen /da'nrms/ KK USIt follows the International Phonetic Alphabet [wikipedia.org], and I for one, don't like it.
It's different.
It's change.
It's communism.
I think it leads us one step closer to total Islamohitlerobamification.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342502</id>
	<title>Re:No ginormous? You need a better dictionary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260104340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You still are a kid.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You still are a kid .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You still are a kid.
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340604</id>
	<title>Vocabulary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260027660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&amp;langpair=en|en&amp;q=puissant&amp;hl=en</p><p>Still has ways to go before it catches up with standard dictionaries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.google.com/dictionary ? aq = f&amp;langpair = en | en&amp;q = puissant&amp;hl = enStill has ways to go before it catches up with standard dictionaries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&amp;langpair=en|en&amp;q=puissant&amp;hl=enStill has ways to go before it catches up with standard dictionaries.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30343056</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>xigxag</author>
	<datestamp>1260113640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I seem to be the only person for whom the word "ginormous" calls to mind a huge vagina.</p><p>Perhaps I was traumatized at birth?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to be the only person for whom the word " ginormous " calls to mind a huge vagina.Perhaps I was traumatized at birth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to be the only person for whom the word "ginormous" calls to mind a huge vagina.Perhaps I was traumatized at birth?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340128</id>
	<title>Re:Urban Dictionary and so on</title>
	<author>palegray.net</author>
	<datestamp>1260022740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You missed the best part of the story summary; the Answers.com link goes to the definition of the word "divorce". I lolled, is that in the dictionary?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You missed the best part of the story summary ; the Answers.com link goes to the definition of the word " divorce " .
I lolled , is that in the dictionary ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You missed the best part of the story summary; the Answers.com link goes to the definition of the word "divorce".
I lolled, is that in the dictionary?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339502</id>
	<title>For English definitions ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260017220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... the websites for long-standing print dictionaries are still the best.</p><p><a href="http://www.oed.com/" title="oed.com" rel="nofollow">Oxford English Dictionary</a> [oed.com] is considered the authoritative standard for the English Language.<br>If you or your employer/university don't have an OED online subscription, <a href="http://www.m-w.com/" title="m-w.com" rel="nofollow">Merriam-Webster</a> [m-w.com] will do in a pinch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... the websites for long-standing print dictionaries are still the best.Oxford English Dictionary [ oed.com ] is considered the authoritative standard for the English Language.If you or your employer/university do n't have an OED online subscription , Merriam-Webster [ m-w.com ] will do in a pinch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the websites for long-standing print dictionaries are still the best.Oxford English Dictionary [oed.com] is considered the authoritative standard for the English Language.If you or your employer/university don't have an OED online subscription, Merriam-Webster [m-w.com] will do in a pinch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340000</id>
	<title>This should make the FTC happy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260021720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"We're a monopoly, you say? Sir, the word 'monopoly' is not even in my dictionary."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...in fact, everything from 'marzipan' to 'morass' seems to be missing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" We 're a monopoly , you say ?
Sir , the word 'monopoly ' is not even in my dictionary .
" ...in fact , everything from 'marzipan ' to 'morass ' seems to be missing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We're a monopoly, you say?
Sir, the word 'monopoly' is not even in my dictionary.
" ...in fact, everything from 'marzipan' to 'morass' seems to be missing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340090</id>
	<title>Wiktionary.org?</title>
	<author>Lord Satri</author>
	<datestamp>1260022620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems no one yet mentioned <a href="http://www.wiktionary.org/" title="wiktionary.org">Wiktionary.org</a> [wiktionary.org]. Over 1 536 000 + in French, a similar number in English. While there's obvious room for improvement, it's generally usable and often useful.</p><p>So here's my question, why does Google dives into a new initiative instead of jumping on existing trains? I guess the answers has something to do with control. Google wants to keep the control (which is understandable and not necessarily a bad thing). This Wiktionary-Google Dictionary is not the only example, <a href="http://www.google.com/mapmaker" title="google.com">Google Map Maker</a> [google.com] and <a href="http://openstreetmap.org/" title="openstreetmap.org">OpenStreetMap.org</a> [openstreetmap.org] is another one (both crowdsourcing map data, and yes, OSM was there much before).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems no one yet mentioned Wiktionary.org [ wiktionary.org ] .
Over 1 536 000 + in French , a similar number in English .
While there 's obvious room for improvement , it 's generally usable and often useful.So here 's my question , why does Google dives into a new initiative instead of jumping on existing trains ?
I guess the answers has something to do with control .
Google wants to keep the control ( which is understandable and not necessarily a bad thing ) .
This Wiktionary-Google Dictionary is not the only example , Google Map Maker [ google.com ] and OpenStreetMap.org [ openstreetmap.org ] is another one ( both crowdsourcing map data , and yes , OSM was there much before ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems no one yet mentioned Wiktionary.org [wiktionary.org].
Over 1 536 000 + in French, a similar number in English.
While there's obvious room for improvement, it's generally usable and often useful.So here's my question, why does Google dives into a new initiative instead of jumping on existing trains?
I guess the answers has something to do with control.
Google wants to keep the control (which is understandable and not necessarily a bad thing).
This Wiktionary-Google Dictionary is not the only example, Google Map Maker [google.com] and OpenStreetMap.org [openstreetmap.org] is another one (both crowdsourcing map data, and yes, OSM was there much before).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340104</id>
	<title>Hey fags! Obama has his dick in your ass.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260022680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He took your votes but if you think you're getting the right to marry? Think again bitches.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He took your votes but if you think you 're getting the right to marry ?
Think again bitches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He took your votes but if you think you're getting the right to marry?
Think again bitches.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339516</id>
	<title>Google Dictionary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260017280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google "Dictionary" is nothing more than a simple aggregation.  They take the definitions from other free dictionaries.</p><p>So why not just include Answers.Com in the Google Dictionary results?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google " Dictionary " is nothing more than a simple aggregation .
They take the definitions from other free dictionaries.So why not just include Answers.Com in the Google Dictionary results ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google "Dictionary" is nothing more than a simple aggregation.
They take the definitions from other free dictionaries.So why not just include Answers.Com in the Google Dictionary results?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339992</id>
	<title>Re:Urban Dictionary and so on</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1260021660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The problem with Urban Dictionary is it's filled with crappy non-objective/crackpot definitions: opinions about words, not <b>accurate</b> well-written definitions, and contains definitions that reinforce many common misconceptions,</p><p> Example #1: <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sugar\%20high" title="urbandictionary.com" rel="nofollow">Sugar High</a> [urbandictionary.com] </p><blockquote><div><p>The intense physiological effect of consuming too much sugar or glucose, usually in the form of cakes, cookies and soda; eating excessive amounts of sugar makes the brain release dopamine and endorphins, often inducing a mild sense of euphoria and happiness.</p></div></blockquote><p> Example #2:
<a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Boogeyman" title="urbandictionary.com" rel="nofollow">Boogeyman</a> [urbandictionary.com]  The scary monster man that gets little kids at night, usually found under the bed or in a dark closet..
<em>Little eric got eaten by the boogeyman when he didn't say his prayer last night.</em>

</p><p> Example #3:
<a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=linux&amp;defid=406702" title="urbandictionary.com" rel="nofollow">Linux</a> [urbandictionary.com]
</p><blockquote><div><p>An overblown "Wal-Mart" OS written by programmers who lack the balls and social skills to walk their own dog.
"The calculator froze up again. Oh, that runs on a Linux kernel. "</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Example #4: <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Windows" title="urbandictionary.com" rel="nofollow">Windows</a> [urbandictionary.com]
<em>A piece of glass you can open when it gets too hot outside. Come on people</em></p><blockquote><div><p>Person 2: " You think you made a mistake? I BOUGHT WINDOWS!"<br> <br>...<br>
The fanciest version of Solitaire I've ever played.</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with Urban Dictionary is it 's filled with crappy non-objective/crackpot definitions : opinions about words , not accurate well-written definitions , and contains definitions that reinforce many common misconceptions , Example # 1 : Sugar High [ urbandictionary.com ] The intense physiological effect of consuming too much sugar or glucose , usually in the form of cakes , cookies and soda ; eating excessive amounts of sugar makes the brain release dopamine and endorphins , often inducing a mild sense of euphoria and happiness .
Example # 2 : Boogeyman [ urbandictionary.com ] The scary monster man that gets little kids at night , usually found under the bed or in a dark closet. . Little eric got eaten by the boogeyman when he did n't say his prayer last night .
Example # 3 : Linux [ urbandictionary.com ] An overblown " Wal-Mart " OS written by programmers who lack the balls and social skills to walk their own dog .
" The calculator froze up again .
Oh , that runs on a Linux kernel .
" Example # 4 : Windows [ urbandictionary.com ] A piece of glass you can open when it gets too hot outside .
Come on peoplePerson 2 : " You think you made a mistake ?
I BOUGHT WINDOWS !
" .. . The fanciest version of Solitaire I 've ever played .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The problem with Urban Dictionary is it's filled with crappy non-objective/crackpot definitions: opinions about words, not accurate well-written definitions, and contains definitions that reinforce many common misconceptions, Example #1: Sugar High [urbandictionary.com] The intense physiological effect of consuming too much sugar or glucose, usually in the form of cakes, cookies and soda; eating excessive amounts of sugar makes the brain release dopamine and endorphins, often inducing a mild sense of euphoria and happiness.
Example #2:
Boogeyman [urbandictionary.com]  The scary monster man that gets little kids at night, usually found under the bed or in a dark closet..
Little eric got eaten by the boogeyman when he didn't say his prayer last night.
Example #3:
Linux [urbandictionary.com]
An overblown "Wal-Mart" OS written by programmers who lack the balls and social skills to walk their own dog.
"The calculator froze up again.
Oh, that runs on a Linux kernel.
"

Example #4: Windows [urbandictionary.com]
A piece of glass you can open when it gets too hot outside.
Come on peoplePerson 2: " You think you made a mistake?
I BOUGHT WINDOWS!
" ...
The fanciest version of Solitaire I've ever played.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342024</id>
	<title>Re:huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260094980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Aparently the OP doesn't know what a thesaurus is.</p></div><p>Yes, thesaurus does not mean dictionary, you'd know this if you'd looked up dictionary in the thesaurus or thesaurus in the dictionary.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aparently the OP does n't know what a thesaurus is.Yes , thesaurus does not mean dictionary , you 'd know this if you 'd looked up dictionary in the thesaurus or thesaurus in the dictionary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Aparently the OP doesn't know what a thesaurus is.Yes, thesaurus does not mean dictionary, you'd know this if you'd looked up dictionary in the thesaurus or thesaurus in the dictionary.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342278</id>
	<title>Old joke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260099720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Aparently the OP doesn't know what a thesaurus is.</p></div><p>What's another word for Thesaurus?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aparently the OP does n't know what a thesaurus is.What 's another word for Thesaurus ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aparently the OP doesn't know what a thesaurus is.What's another word for Thesaurus?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340052</id>
	<title>No ginormous? You need a better dictionary</title>
	<author>Tim C</author>
	<datestamp>1260022200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm 35 and was using the word "ginormous" as a kid. Sure enough, it's in the <a href="http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=32910&amp;dict=CALD" title="cambridge.org">Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary</a> [cambridge.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm 35 and was using the word " ginormous " as a kid .
Sure enough , it 's in the Cambridge Advanced Learner 's Dictionary [ cambridge.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm 35 and was using the word "ginormous" as a kid.
Sure enough, it's in the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary [cambridge.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339790</id>
	<title>This is a Ginormous Step Forward... almost</title>
	<author>Frankenshteen</author>
	<datestamp>1260019800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting the Chrome spell checker doesn't seem to be clued into the validity of this word.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting the Chrome spell checker does n't seem to be clued into the validity of this word .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting the Chrome spell checker doesn't seem to be clued into the validity of this word.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341450</id>
	<title>Re:It will do for now</title>
	<author>Itninja</author>
	<datestamp>1260039960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Meh. I am a native English speaker but am also learning Arabic. All they have for Arabic is an English/Arabic translator. Maybe one day they will have an actual Arabic dictionary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh .
I am a native English speaker but am also learning Arabic .
All they have for Arabic is an English/Arabic translator .
Maybe one day they will have an actual Arabic dictionary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meh.
I am a native English speaker but am also learning Arabic.
All they have for Arabic is an English/Arabic translator.
Maybe one day they will have an actual Arabic dictionary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30343452</id>
	<title>More languages pleeeeeeease!</title>
	<author>Abuzar</author>
	<datestamp>1260118200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was really hoping for Polish and Japanese!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was really hoping for Polish and Japanese !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was really hoping for Polish and Japanese!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30348638</id>
	<title>Poor Yahoo</title>
	<author>Psaakyrn</author>
	<datestamp>1260114660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google and Bing both come up on top in definitions, but Yahoo gets hidden somewhere below (lower than it's messenger).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google and Bing both come up on top in definitions , but Yahoo gets hidden somewhere below ( lower than it 's messenger ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google and Bing both come up on top in definitions, but Yahoo gets hidden somewhere below (lower than it's messenger).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341380</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260038940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use M-W because it has audio clips for pronunciation.  Google's dictionary doesn't seem to have that.  I guess I'll still use M-W.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use M-W because it has audio clips for pronunciation .
Google 's dictionary does n't seem to have that .
I guess I 'll still use M-W .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use M-W because it has audio clips for pronunciation.
Google's dictionary doesn't seem to have that.
I guess I'll still use M-W.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341568</id>
	<title>Re:huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260042000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Huh? What is a "Google word search definition?" Okay, click through to the LA times blog, which say, "Previously, the 'definition' button at the top right of all Google searches for words would direct users to entries on the Wikipedia-like Answers.com site. Now those links go to Google Dictionary, a less colorful, less cluttered interface." Double huh? Never noticed such a thing before. I did two Google searches on dictionary words just now, and neither one came up with a "'definition' button at the top right." I've never noticed one in the past, and I'm not seeing one now.</p></div><p>http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/4458/lovegooglesearch1260081.png</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
What is a " Google word search definition ?
" Okay , click through to the LA times blog , which say , " Previously , the 'definition ' button at the top right of all Google searches for words would direct users to entries on the Wikipedia-like Answers.com site .
Now those links go to Google Dictionary , a less colorful , less cluttered interface .
" Double huh ?
Never noticed such a thing before .
I did two Google searches on dictionary words just now , and neither one came up with a " 'definition ' button at the top right .
" I 've never noticed one in the past , and I 'm not seeing one now.http : //img51.imageshack.us/img51/4458/lovegooglesearch1260081.png</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Huh?
What is a "Google word search definition?
" Okay, click through to the LA times blog, which say, "Previously, the 'definition' button at the top right of all Google searches for words would direct users to entries on the Wikipedia-like Answers.com site.
Now those links go to Google Dictionary, a less colorful, less cluttered interface.
" Double huh?
Never noticed such a thing before.
I did two Google searches on dictionary words just now, and neither one came up with a "'definition' button at the top right.
" I've never noticed one in the past, and I'm not seeing one now.http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/4458/lovegooglesearch1260081.png
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340294</id>
	<title>Re:Google Dictionary?</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1260024540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also, bad to double reply I know but... Google has a play button so you can hear the word.. in fact, it has a male UK speaker and female US speaker to work out dialects (for ginormous at least).  And it has the gibberish known as pronunciation keys.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , bad to double reply I know but... Google has a play button so you can hear the word.. in fact , it has a male UK speaker and female US speaker to work out dialects ( for ginormous at least ) .
And it has the gibberish known as pronunciation keys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, bad to double reply I know but... Google has a play button so you can hear the word.. in fact, it has a male UK speaker and female US speaker to work out dialects (for ginormous at least).
And it has the gibberish known as pronunciation keys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339474</id>
	<title>When google finally presses the evil button...</title>
	<author>cupantae</author>
	<datestamp>1260016980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...we will have to pay to use any words that are in google dictionary. That's why frequently used but non-dictionary words like "ginormous" are in there. I notice that my native Irish (Gaelic) isn't there, so I'll just put on another few layers of tin foil and start speaking Irish</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...we will have to pay to use any words that are in google dictionary .
That 's why frequently used but non-dictionary words like " ginormous " are in there .
I notice that my native Irish ( Gaelic ) is n't there , so I 'll just put on another few layers of tin foil and start speaking Irish</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...we will have to pay to use any words that are in google dictionary.
That's why frequently used but non-dictionary words like "ginormous" are in there.
I notice that my native Irish (Gaelic) isn't there, so I'll just put on another few layers of tin foil and start speaking Irish</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342628</id>
	<title>Google Defines "Slashdot"....</title>
	<author>rcragun</author>
	<datestamp>1260106740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Web definitions
<br>o Slashdot, sometimes abbreviated as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., is a technology-related news website owned by SourceForge, Inc.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
<br>o To render a web site slow or unusable via the unusually large number of page requests that result from a link on a very popular web site; To<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
<br>o The act of self mutilation by an individual addicted to overclocking</htmltext>
<tokenext>Web definitions o Slashdot , sometimes abbreviated as /. , is a technology-related news website owned by SourceForge , Inc. .. . o To render a web site slow or unusable via the unusually large number of page requests that result from a link on a very popular web site ; To .. . o The act of self mutilation by an individual addicted to overclocking</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Web definitions
o Slashdot, sometimes abbreviated as /., is a technology-related news website owned by SourceForge, Inc. ...
o To render a web site slow or unusable via the unusually large number of page requests that result from a link on a very popular web site; To ...
o The act of self mutilation by an individual addicted to overclocking</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342082</id>
	<title>Re:It will do for now</title>
	<author>NorQue</author>
	<datestamp>1260096300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>[...] Sign language (ASL) [...]</p></div></blockquote><p>So, that's <i>Sign language</i>? I think I speak that, too: 24/f/Burkina Faso.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ... ] Sign language ( ASL ) [ ... ] So , that 's Sign language ?
I think I speak that , too : 24/f/Burkina Faso .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[...] Sign language (ASL) [...]So, that's Sign language?
I think I speak that, too: 24/f/Burkina Faso.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341086</id>
	<title>Ad Supported???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260034260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hopefully Answers.com wasn't paying the bills based on ad revenue... this is surely to hurt a bit if so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully Answers.com was n't paying the bills based on ad revenue... this is surely to hurt a bit if so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully Answers.com wasn't paying the bills based on ad revenue... this is surely to hurt a bit if so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340116</id>
	<title>Quietly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260022680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they rolled it out quietly because, as dictionaries go, this one sucks.  It's the only one I've ever seen that defines every word by using that word in a sentence.  E.g. for the word "hold", we find:</p><blockquote><div><p>If one thing is used to hold another, it is used to store it.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's fine for a spelling bee, but in a dictionary, I prefer the more conventional (and more succinct) definition:</p><blockquote><div><p>to contain or be capable of containing</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they rolled it out quietly because , as dictionaries go , this one sucks .
It 's the only one I 've ever seen that defines every word by using that word in a sentence .
E.g. for the word " hold " , we find : If one thing is used to hold another , it is used to store it.That 's fine for a spelling bee , but in a dictionary , I prefer the more conventional ( and more succinct ) definition : to contain or be capable of containing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they rolled it out quietly because, as dictionaries go, this one sucks.
It's the only one I've ever seen that defines every word by using that word in a sentence.
E.g. for the word "hold", we find:If one thing is used to hold another, it is used to store it.That's fine for a spelling bee, but in a dictionary, I prefer the more conventional (and more succinct) definition:to contain or be capable of containing
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339864</id>
	<title>Re:define:-searches are not redirected</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260020400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's pretty much the way I've always done it. Didn't know there were alternatives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's pretty much the way I 've always done it .
Did n't know there were alternatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's pretty much the way I've always done it.
Didn't know there were alternatives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339536</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340206</id>
	<title>Re:Google Dictionary?</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1260023520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll wait to decide in 6months. Hopefully it will be better by then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll wait to decide in 6months .
Hopefully it will be better by then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll wait to decide in 6months.
Hopefully it will be better by then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30348408</id>
	<title>Re:It will do for now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260112440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure about German, Japanese, Spanish, French and Sign language, but in English, you don't pluralize with an apostrophe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure about German , Japanese , Spanish , French and Sign language , but in English , you do n't pluralize with an apostrophe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure about German, Japanese, Spanish, French and Sign language, but in English, you don't pluralize with an apostrophe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339988</id>
	<title>Re:It will do for now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260021600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I tested <b>it's</b> translations in <b>all the different languages</b> and it performed <b>fine</b> by my standard except for ASL for obvious <b>reason's</b>.</i> </p><p>Based on this sample of English, presumably your native language, I'm going to have to take your opinions on accurate translations with a grain of salt.  Actually, make that a crystal of halite.  Several kilogram sample.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tested it 's translations in all the different languages and it performed fine by my standard except for ASL for obvious reason 's .
Based on this sample of English , presumably your native language , I 'm going to have to take your opinions on accurate translations with a grain of salt .
Actually , make that a crystal of halite .
Several kilogram sample .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I tested it's translations in all the different languages and it performed fine by my standard except for ASL for obvious reason's.
Based on this sample of English, presumably your native language, I'm going to have to take your opinions on accurate translations with a grain of salt.
Actually, make that a crystal of halite.
Several kilogram sample.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342406</id>
	<title>Re:Urban Dictionary and so on</title>
	<author>gmrath</author>
	<datestamp>1260102300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What every you do, check the link for #3.  Absolutely hilarious . . . and nothing like the his example, although that's pretty funny, too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What every you do , check the link for # 3 .
Absolutely hilarious .
. .
and nothing like the his example , although that 's pretty funny , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What every you do, check the link for #3.
Absolutely hilarious .
. .
and nothing like the his example, although that's pretty funny, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341134</id>
	<title>Re:But...</title>
	<author>Courageous</author>
	<datestamp>1260034920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any dictionary I have ever seen would consider "ginormous" to be a word.</p><p>See the definition of "word" here:</p><p><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/word" title="reference.com">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/word</a> [reference.com]</p><p>This is one of my favorite asinine party tricks. If someone tells me something isn't a word, I bet them that it is, according to THEIR dictionary. I've never lost this bet. It has the added virtue of verbally pinching the anal retentive word monger right on the nose.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>C//</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any dictionary I have ever seen would consider " ginormous " to be a word.See the definition of " word " here : http : //dictionary.reference.com/browse/word [ reference.com ] This is one of my favorite asinine party tricks .
If someone tells me something is n't a word , I bet them that it is , according to THEIR dictionary .
I 've never lost this bet .
It has the added virtue of verbally pinching the anal retentive word monger right on the nose .
: - ) C//</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any dictionary I have ever seen would consider "ginormous" to be a word.See the definition of "word" here:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/word [reference.com]This is one of my favorite asinine party tricks.
If someone tells me something isn't a word, I bet them that it is, according to THEIR dictionary.
I've never lost this bet.
It has the added virtue of verbally pinching the anal retentive word monger right on the nose.
:-)C//</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339444</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>rmushkatblat</author>
	<datestamp>1260016740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now we don't have to deal with M-W terrible website layout, popups, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now we do n't have to deal with M-W terrible website layout , popups , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now we don't have to deal with M-W terrible website layout, popups, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339742</id>
	<title>Re:why?</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1260019440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I prefer to go to Google's dictionary because it loads much faster than the others. I just want a definition and if I want it expanded upon, thankfully Google provides links to external sites.
<br> <br>
It's by no means perfect but it's probably not complete and with the inclusion of, at the very least, a wikipedia link, I can get a full and detailed definition if required.
<br> <br>
Imo, most dictionary sites are ugly and too graphic intensive for a site where people are only interested in words.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer to go to Google 's dictionary because it loads much faster than the others .
I just want a definition and if I want it expanded upon , thankfully Google provides links to external sites .
It 's by no means perfect but it 's probably not complete and with the inclusion of , at the very least , a wikipedia link , I can get a full and detailed definition if required .
Imo , most dictionary sites are ugly and too graphic intensive for a site where people are only interested in words .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer to go to Google's dictionary because it loads much faster than the others.
I just want a definition and if I want it expanded upon, thankfully Google provides links to external sites.
It's by no means perfect but it's probably not complete and with the inclusion of, at the very least, a wikipedia link, I can get a full and detailed definition if required.
Imo, most dictionary sites are ugly and too graphic intensive for a site where people are only interested in words.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339620</id>
	<title>Re:Google Dictionary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260018300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I for one am very unhappy about answers.com being removed.
<br> <br>
For one thing, it had audio pronunciation guides. Google doesn't.
<br>
Thesaurus, antonyms etc. are integrated. Google doesn't have any of these.
<br> <br>
Seems more of a downgrade really. What does google offer that answers.com doesn't?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one am very unhappy about answers.com being removed .
For one thing , it had audio pronunciation guides .
Google does n't .
Thesaurus , antonyms etc .
are integrated .
Google does n't have any of these .
Seems more of a downgrade really .
What does google offer that answers.com does n't ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one am very unhappy about answers.com being removed.
For one thing, it had audio pronunciation guides.
Google doesn't.
Thesaurus, antonyms etc.
are integrated.
Google doesn't have any of these.
Seems more of a downgrade really.
What does google offer that answers.com doesn't?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340336</id>
	<title>Re:why?</title>
	<author>BeanThere</author>
	<datestamp>1260024900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It makes sense that Google wants to do this, and Google generally do good stuff<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but I'm really slowly just starting to feel a bit like, 'OK Google, enough, you don't have to be part of *everything* I try do in life'. Am not saying they've done anything wrong; maybe there really is just a tendency for people to not like one company to get too big.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It makes sense that Google wants to do this , and Google generally do good stuff ... but I 'm really slowly just starting to feel a bit like , 'OK Google , enough , you do n't have to be part of * everything * I try do in life' .
Am not saying they 've done anything wrong ; maybe there really is just a tendency for people to not like one company to get too big .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It makes sense that Google wants to do this, and Google generally do good stuff ... but I'm really slowly just starting to feel a bit like, 'OK Google, enough, you don't have to be part of *everything* I try do in life'.
Am not saying they've done anything wrong; maybe there really is just a tendency for people to not like one company to get too big.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339710</id>
	<title>allows users to decide what are words</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260019140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope the dictionary works on a sort of democratic principle, where words are defined by their actual usage.</p><p>Dictionary editors understand this, but they just don't update enough to make it work.  M-W doesn't have the Simpsons' <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cromulent" title="merriam-webster.com">cromulent</a> [merriam-webster.com], but it has Shakespeare's <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/puke" title="merriam-webster.com">puke</a> [merriam-webster.com] and Dr. Suess's <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nerd" title="merriam-webster.com">nerd</a> [merriam-webster.com].  It'd be nice to have a dictionary that evolves as quickly as language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope the dictionary works on a sort of democratic principle , where words are defined by their actual usage.Dictionary editors understand this , but they just do n't update enough to make it work .
M-W does n't have the Simpsons ' cromulent [ merriam-webster.com ] , but it has Shakespeare 's puke [ merriam-webster.com ] and Dr. Suess 's nerd [ merriam-webster.com ] .
It 'd be nice to have a dictionary that evolves as quickly as language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope the dictionary works on a sort of democratic principle, where words are defined by their actual usage.Dictionary editors understand this, but they just don't update enough to make it work.
M-W doesn't have the Simpsons' cromulent [merriam-webster.com], but it has Shakespeare's puke [merriam-webster.com] and Dr. Suess's nerd [merriam-webster.com].
It'd be nice to have a dictionary that evolves as quickly as language.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339400</id>
	<title>Urban Dictionary and so on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260016380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder why I haven't actually seen the snippets of definitions lately. I remember seeing them a few years ago. Not that it would had actually changed a lot - there's always lots of different sites linking to dictionaries on the first page of results.</p><p>Urban Dictionary has actually been the most useful one of those.</p><p>User ratings, definitions of almost all the weird (and stupid) words teens come up with and usually fun descriptions too.</p><p>Now get off my lawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder why I have n't actually seen the snippets of definitions lately .
I remember seeing them a few years ago .
Not that it would had actually changed a lot - there 's always lots of different sites linking to dictionaries on the first page of results.Urban Dictionary has actually been the most useful one of those.User ratings , definitions of almost all the weird ( and stupid ) words teens come up with and usually fun descriptions too.Now get off my lawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder why I haven't actually seen the snippets of definitions lately.
I remember seeing them a few years ago.
Not that it would had actually changed a lot - there's always lots of different sites linking to dictionaries on the first page of results.Urban Dictionary has actually been the most useful one of those.User ratings, definitions of almost all the weird (and stupid) words teens come up with and usually fun descriptions too.Now get off my lawn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339496</id>
	<title>But...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260017160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ginormous IS a word. It's just a relatively new word.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ginormous IS a word .
It 's just a relatively new word .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ginormous IS a word.
It's just a relatively new word.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340998</id>
	<title>Re:When google finally presses the evil button...</title>
	<author>Blue Stone</author>
	<datestamp>1260032940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I did. What I saw is a bunch of links to other sites that define related phrases.</p><p>When i click on a definition link that's on Answers.com, I get what you would expect from a dictionary - a bunch of definitions for the word I was inquiring about. Google Dictionary doesn't do that (in this case) - it gives one single definition out of the many available and then gives me other links to follow for what it calls ' related phrases'. In other words, i have to go to yet more sites to get the definition I was looking for when I clicked 'definition' and was taken to Google Dictionary.</p><p>It's not a dictionary. It's 'some' definitions (one in this case) and then a buch of links to other sites that may have the definition i want. Why do i want to hop from site to site in search of my definition? That's what i thought I was clicking on 'definition' for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I did .
What I saw is a bunch of links to other sites that define related phrases.When i click on a definition link that 's on Answers.com , I get what you would expect from a dictionary - a bunch of definitions for the word I was inquiring about .
Google Dictionary does n't do that ( in this case ) - it gives one single definition out of the many available and then gives me other links to follow for what it calls ' related phrases' .
In other words , i have to go to yet more sites to get the definition I was looking for when I clicked 'definition ' and was taken to Google Dictionary.It 's not a dictionary .
It 's 'some ' definitions ( one in this case ) and then a buch of links to other sites that may have the definition i want .
Why do i want to hop from site to site in search of my definition ?
That 's what i thought I was clicking on 'definition ' for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I did.
What I saw is a bunch of links to other sites that define related phrases.When i click on a definition link that's on Answers.com, I get what you would expect from a dictionary - a bunch of definitions for the word I was inquiring about.
Google Dictionary doesn't do that (in this case) - it gives one single definition out of the many available and then gives me other links to follow for what it calls ' related phrases'.
In other words, i have to go to yet more sites to get the definition I was looking for when I clicked 'definition' and was taken to Google Dictionary.It's not a dictionary.
It's 'some' definitions (one in this case) and then a buch of links to other sites that may have the definition i want.
Why do i want to hop from site to site in search of my definition?
That's what i thought I was clicking on 'definition' for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339930</id>
	<title>Where's the thesaurus?</title>
	<author>sir\_montag</author>
	<datestamp>1260020880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It lists synonyms, but where's a decent online thesaurus when you need one? I've tried a few and most of them are useless, or hopelessly ad-cluttered or both<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It lists synonyms , but where 's a decent online thesaurus when you need one ?
I 've tried a few and most of them are useless , or hopelessly ad-cluttered or both : /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It lists synonyms, but where's a decent online thesaurus when you need one?
I've tried a few and most of them are useless, or hopelessly ad-cluttered or both :/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339536</id>
	<title>define:-searches are not redirected</title>
	<author>Eudial</author>
	<datestamp>1260017400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't look like it's fully deployed yet. Google searches of the form "define:word" are not redirected to google dictionary yet. Which is a shame. Because that's one hell of an useful way of looking up terms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't look like it 's fully deployed yet .
Google searches of the form " define : word " are not redirected to google dictionary yet .
Which is a shame .
Because that 's one hell of an useful way of looking up terms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't look like it's fully deployed yet.
Google searches of the form "define:word" are not redirected to google dictionary yet.
Which is a shame.
Because that's one hell of an useful way of looking up terms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340214</id>
	<title>Re:Google Dictionary?</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1260023640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe he is the CEO of answers.com, I'm sure he is "really fucking unhappy"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe he is the CEO of answers.com , I 'm sure he is " really fucking unhappy " : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe he is the CEO of answers.com, I'm sure he is "really fucking unhappy" :P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339676</id>
	<title>Unanswered Question?</title>
	<author>lenmaster</author>
	<datestamp>1260018900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do this mean I'm not going to get answer to this question on answers.com:

<a href="http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How\_do\_you\_know\_when\_its\_time\_to\_poop" title="answers.com" rel="nofollow">http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How\_do\_you\_know\_when\_its\_time\_to\_poop</a> [answers.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do this mean I 'm not going to get answer to this question on answers.com : http : //wiki.answers.com/Q/How \ _do \ _you \ _know \ _when \ _its \ _time \ _to \ _poop [ answers.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do this mean I'm not going to get answer to this question on answers.com:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How\_do\_you\_know\_when\_its\_time\_to\_poop [answers.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339512</id>
	<title>I don't care about "most dictionaries"...</title>
	<author>lammy</author>
	<datestamp>1260017280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it's in the Oxford, then it's a bloody word!

<a href="http://www.askoxford.com/concise\_oed/ginormous?view=uk" title="askoxford.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.askoxford.com/concise\_oed/ginormous?view=uk</a> [askoxford.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... And that's the Compact dictionary - so it's definitely in the ginormous one!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's in the Oxford , then it 's a bloody word !
http : //www.askoxford.com/concise \ _oed/ginormous ? view = uk [ askoxford.com ] ... And that 's the Compact dictionary - so it 's definitely in the ginormous one !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's in the Oxford, then it's a bloody word!
http://www.askoxford.com/concise\_oed/ginormous?view=uk [askoxford.com] ... And that's the Compact dictionary - so it's definitely in the ginormous one!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341884</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>anethema</author>
	<datestamp>1260091620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It doesn't get much more plain and functional than this google one. Plus, you just click the dropdown to get a nice language translator.<br><br>http://www.google.ca/dictionary?aq=f&amp;langpair=en|en&amp;hl=en&amp;q=functional</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't get much more plain and functional than this google one .
Plus , you just click the dropdown to get a nice language translator.http : //www.google.ca/dictionary ? aq = f&amp;langpair = en | en&amp;hl = en&amp;q = functional</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't get much more plain and functional than this google one.
Plus, you just click the dropdown to get a nice language translator.http://www.google.ca/dictionary?aq=f&amp;langpair=en|en&amp;hl=en&amp;q=functional</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339616</id>
	<title>It will do for now</title>
	<author>cyberzephyr</author>
	<datestamp>1260018240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I speak 4 languages other than English: German, Japanese, Spanish, French and Sign language (ASL)  as well.  I tested it's translations in all the different languages and it performed fine by my standard except for ASL for obvious reason's.</p><p>I liked it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I speak 4 languages other than English : German , Japanese , Spanish , French and Sign language ( ASL ) as well .
I tested it 's translations in all the different languages and it performed fine by my standard except for ASL for obvious reason 's.I liked it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I speak 4 languages other than English: German, Japanese, Spanish, French and Sign language (ASL)  as well.
I tested it's translations in all the different languages and it performed fine by my standard except for ASL for obvious reason's.I liked it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342250</id>
	<title>It looks nice...</title>
	<author>Alioth</author>
	<datestamp>1260099300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It looks great, but I think I'll stick with WordReference.com.</p><p>The great thing about Wordreference is not only does it give a definition and shows the word in several sentences in context (especially so in the English to Spanish and Spanish to English dictionaries) is that it has language forums, and posts about words and phrases are also linked from the dictionary lookup.</p><p>One thing I'd like from a search engine or dictionary is the ability to look up grammar examples. For example, if I want to see if a certain construct is valid (well, at least, is in wide usage) I'd like to be enter something like this into a search engine (as a really simple example) "Mary (verb) a (noun)" - where it would search for sentences constructed with that structure. Or perhaps something more complex, specifying that the verb be a certain tense and mood.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks great , but I think I 'll stick with WordReference.com.The great thing about Wordreference is not only does it give a definition and shows the word in several sentences in context ( especially so in the English to Spanish and Spanish to English dictionaries ) is that it has language forums , and posts about words and phrases are also linked from the dictionary lookup.One thing I 'd like from a search engine or dictionary is the ability to look up grammar examples .
For example , if I want to see if a certain construct is valid ( well , at least , is in wide usage ) I 'd like to be enter something like this into a search engine ( as a really simple example ) " Mary ( verb ) a ( noun ) " - where it would search for sentences constructed with that structure .
Or perhaps something more complex , specifying that the verb be a certain tense and mood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks great, but I think I'll stick with WordReference.com.The great thing about Wordreference is not only does it give a definition and shows the word in several sentences in context (especially so in the English to Spanish and Spanish to English dictionaries) is that it has language forums, and posts about words and phrases are also linked from the dictionary lookup.One thing I'd like from a search engine or dictionary is the ability to look up grammar examples.
For example, if I want to see if a certain construct is valid (well, at least, is in wide usage) I'd like to be enter something like this into a search engine (as a really simple example) "Mary (verb) a (noun)" - where it would search for sentences constructed with that structure.
Or perhaps something more complex, specifying that the verb be a certain tense and mood.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341598</id>
	<title>Re:Wiktionary.org?</title>
	<author>hansamurai</author>
	<datestamp>1260042420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It could have just started as some junior level programmer's 20\% time and bubbled up from there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It could have just started as some junior level programmer 's 20 \ % time and bubbled up from there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could have just started as some junior level programmer's 20\% time and bubbled up from there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340090</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30345646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30343056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30348408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30343884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30343158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_05_2312256_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_2312256.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340294
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339780
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_2312256.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_2312256.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339936
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_2312256.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_2312256.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_2312256.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30348408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_2312256.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_2312256.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_2312256.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_2312256.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_2312256.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_2312256.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30345646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_2312256.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_2312256.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_2312256.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_2312256.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30343158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30343056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_2312256.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342586
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_2312256.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340000
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_2312256.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341568
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_2312256.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_2312256.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30342532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_05_2312256.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30339778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30343884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30340096
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_05_2312256.30341884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
