<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_08_2343217</id>
	<title>FTC, Google Go After Scammers</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1260277320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>coondoggie notes that the Federal Trade Commission said it was going after three outfits that allegedly made <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/48861">robocalls to sell worthless credit-card interest-rate reduction programs</a> for large up-front fees (as much as $1,495). And reader Cwix tips us that today Google <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/08/technology/Google\_lawsuit\_Pacific\_Webworks/index.htm">filed a lawsuit against Pacific WebWorks</a> and other unnamed defendants for allegedly using the company's name and logo to promote fraudulent work-at-home money-making schemes. <i>"Kate Lister, author of <em>Undress for Success &mdash; The Naked Truth about Making Money at Home</em>, estimates that more than 95\% of Google hits on the words 'work at home' are scams, link to scams, or other dead ends."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>coondoggie notes that the Federal Trade Commission said it was going after three outfits that allegedly made robocalls to sell worthless credit-card interest-rate reduction programs for large up-front fees ( as much as $ 1,495 ) .
And reader Cwix tips us that today Google filed a lawsuit against Pacific WebWorks and other unnamed defendants for allegedly using the company 's name and logo to promote fraudulent work-at-home money-making schemes .
" Kate Lister , author of Undress for Success    The Naked Truth about Making Money at Home , estimates that more than 95 \ % of Google hits on the words 'work at home ' are scams , link to scams , or other dead ends .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>coondoggie notes that the Federal Trade Commission said it was going after three outfits that allegedly made robocalls to sell worthless credit-card interest-rate reduction programs for large up-front fees (as much as $1,495).
And reader Cwix tips us that today Google filed a lawsuit against Pacific WebWorks and other unnamed defendants for allegedly using the company's name and logo to promote fraudulent work-at-home money-making schemes.
"Kate Lister, author of Undress for Success — The Naked Truth about Making Money at Home, estimates that more than 95\% of Google hits on the words 'work at home' are scams, link to scams, or other dead ends.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30379496</id>
	<title>It used to be hard damn work to work-at-home scam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259610780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love how the Internetz has allowed any lazy SOB to be a scammer.  What happened to all the hard work you used to have to do in order to "work at home" scam people?  Back in the day pre-Internetz, a college roommate of mine answered one of those "stuff envelopes from home" that used to appear in like every college newspaper want ads at the time.  It cost like $20 up front or something like that to get the package.  When the package arrived, it was basically an envelope with a sheet of paper that said something to the effect of "take out ads in college newspapers advertising to stuff envelopes at home, then make photocopies of this document and mail it to anyone that answers the ad."  LOL  We laughed so hard at him.  Because after all, $20 was a lot of beers back then what with the nickel beer nights and such<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love how the Internetz has allowed any lazy SOB to be a scammer .
What happened to all the hard work you used to have to do in order to " work at home " scam people ?
Back in the day pre-Internetz , a college roommate of mine answered one of those " stuff envelopes from home " that used to appear in like every college newspaper want ads at the time .
It cost like $ 20 up front or something like that to get the package .
When the package arrived , it was basically an envelope with a sheet of paper that said something to the effect of " take out ads in college newspapers advertising to stuff envelopes at home , then make photocopies of this document and mail it to anyone that answers the ad .
" LOL We laughed so hard at him .
Because after all , $ 20 was a lot of beers back then what with the nickel beer nights and such : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love how the Internetz has allowed any lazy SOB to be a scammer.
What happened to all the hard work you used to have to do in order to "work at home" scam people?
Back in the day pre-Internetz, a college roommate of mine answered one of those "stuff envelopes from home" that used to appear in like every college newspaper want ads at the time.
It cost like $20 up front or something like that to get the package.
When the package arrived, it was basically an envelope with a sheet of paper that said something to the effect of "take out ads in college newspapers advertising to stuff envelopes at home, then make photocopies of this document and mail it to anyone that answers the ad.
"  LOL  We laughed so hard at him.
Because after all, $20 was a lot of beers back then what with the nickel beer nights and such :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376692</id>
	<title>Undress for success?</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1259594520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Undress for Success &mdash; The Naked Truth about Making Money at Home"</p><p>Is the subtext here that the only way to make money working from home is as a webcam stripper?</p><p>Or merely that when you're on the phone to your working-from-home colleague, he may be naked?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Undress for Success    The Naked Truth about Making Money at Home " Is the subtext here that the only way to make money working from home is as a webcam stripper ? Or merely that when you 're on the phone to your working-from-home colleague , he may be naked ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Undress for Success — The Naked Truth about Making Money at Home"Is the subtext here that the only way to make money working from home is as a webcam stripper?Or merely that when you're on the phone to your working-from-home colleague, he may be naked?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30377098</id>
	<title>Re:Undress for success?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259597400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd become a webcam stripper in a heart beat if anyone wanted to see my bloated saggy body.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd become a webcam stripper in a heart beat if anyone wanted to see my bloated saggy body .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd become a webcam stripper in a heart beat if anyone wanted to see my bloated saggy body.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376820</id>
	<title>How do you shorten a line?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259595600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I was growing up a movie had this promotion going on in print ads.
A large blank page with just one line segment and this question. "How do you shorten this line without erasing any part of it? See the movie blah[*]".<p>

The solution in the movie was "draw a bigger line next to it". Well, the evil of "why do you care if you have nothing to hide" will be pushed aside by bigger tangible  evil of these scammers.</p><p>


[*] blah= <i>iru kOdukaL, (meaning Two linesegments in Tamil)</i>, by K Balachandar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was growing up a movie had this promotion going on in print ads .
A large blank page with just one line segment and this question .
" How do you shorten this line without erasing any part of it ?
See the movie blah [ * ] " .
The solution in the movie was " draw a bigger line next to it " .
Well , the evil of " why do you care if you have nothing to hide " will be pushed aside by bigger tangible evil of these scammers .
[ * ] blah = iru kOdukaL , ( meaning Two linesegments in Tamil ) , by K Balachandar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was growing up a movie had this promotion going on in print ads.
A large blank page with just one line segment and this question.
"How do you shorten this line without erasing any part of it?
See the movie blah[*]".
The solution in the movie was "draw a bigger line next to it".
Well, the evil of "why do you care if you have nothing to hide" will be pushed aside by bigger tangible  evil of these scammers.
[*] blah= iru kOdukaL, (meaning Two linesegments in Tamil), by K Balachandar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376668</id>
	<title>Webcam stripper?</title>
	<author>AttilaSz</author>
	<datestamp>1259594340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"... Kate Lister, author of Undress for Success &mdash; The Naked Truth about Making Money at Home..."</p><p>Admit it, your first thought was "webcam stripper". Mine was<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>The website at <a href="http://undress4success.com/" title="undress4success.com" rel="nofollow">http://undress4success.com/</a> [undress4success.com] is actually quite interesting.</p><p>And, no, it ain't a webcam stripper<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... Kate Lister , author of Undress for Success    The Naked Truth about Making Money at Home... " Admit it , your first thought was " webcam stripper " .
Mine was : - ) The website at http : //undress4success.com/ [ undress4success.com ] is actually quite interesting.And , no , it ai n't a webcam stripper : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... Kate Lister, author of Undress for Success — The Naked Truth about Making Money at Home..."Admit it, your first thought was "webcam stripper".
Mine was :-)The website at http://undress4success.com/ [undress4success.com] is actually quite interesting.And, no, it ain't a webcam stripper :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376470</id>
	<title>Re:No, really?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259592900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"people who just want to do minimal work, never leave the house, and yet still make thousands per week?"</p><p>You've met our IT Consultants?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" people who just want to do minimal work , never leave the house , and yet still make thousands per week ?
" You 've met our IT Consultants ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"people who just want to do minimal work, never leave the house, and yet still make thousands per week?
"You've met our IT Consultants?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30377150</id>
	<title>Re:Work at home...</title>
	<author>veganboyjosh</author>
	<datestamp>1259597700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually used to work at a company who made paper products. Cards, bookmarks, etc. What was unique to this company, and several others around the US, is that they had elements which were handmade. They needed to be assembled. The company would employ assemblers to work at home. Many of the in-office employees would also take work home. Something simple like a bookmark would pay 3 cents per piece. It doesn't sound like much, but once they learn how to do it efficiently, it's possible--and likely--that assemblers would make over $12 per hour. I made over $300 one weekend. I was single, and all I did over the weekend was put together bookmarks, so that wasn't the standard.
One problem we had was finding new folks to be at-home assemblers. The job we had was legit. We'd post on craigslist and other places that we were hiring for a  legit work at home assembly job, and the ads would always--ALWAYS--be marked as spam, or scam, or not legit. The job was a local one. Ie, you couldn't do it over the internet, or the phone. You also did not have to pay any money for materials or supplies. Those to items seemed to help the legitimacy of our ads, and we would include both in the ads, but the reputation referenced by the parent is certainly there.<br> <br>
 There are work at home jobs, and many are legit. Unfortunately, scammers have found that there are many many people who will pay lots of money for the convenience of some impossible task that pays pennies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually used to work at a company who made paper products .
Cards , bookmarks , etc .
What was unique to this company , and several others around the US , is that they had elements which were handmade .
They needed to be assembled .
The company would employ assemblers to work at home .
Many of the in-office employees would also take work home .
Something simple like a bookmark would pay 3 cents per piece .
It does n't sound like much , but once they learn how to do it efficiently , it 's possible--and likely--that assemblers would make over $ 12 per hour .
I made over $ 300 one weekend .
I was single , and all I did over the weekend was put together bookmarks , so that was n't the standard .
One problem we had was finding new folks to be at-home assemblers .
The job we had was legit .
We 'd post on craigslist and other places that we were hiring for a legit work at home assembly job , and the ads would always--ALWAYS--be marked as spam , or scam , or not legit .
The job was a local one .
Ie , you could n't do it over the internet , or the phone .
You also did not have to pay any money for materials or supplies .
Those to items seemed to help the legitimacy of our ads , and we would include both in the ads , but the reputation referenced by the parent is certainly there .
There are work at home jobs , and many are legit .
Unfortunately , scammers have found that there are many many people who will pay lots of money for the convenience of some impossible task that pays pennies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually used to work at a company who made paper products.
Cards, bookmarks, etc.
What was unique to this company, and several others around the US, is that they had elements which were handmade.
They needed to be assembled.
The company would employ assemblers to work at home.
Many of the in-office employees would also take work home.
Something simple like a bookmark would pay 3 cents per piece.
It doesn't sound like much, but once they learn how to do it efficiently, it's possible--and likely--that assemblers would make over $12 per hour.
I made over $300 one weekend.
I was single, and all I did over the weekend was put together bookmarks, so that wasn't the standard.
One problem we had was finding new folks to be at-home assemblers.
The job we had was legit.
We'd post on craigslist and other places that we were hiring for a  legit work at home assembly job, and the ads would always--ALWAYS--be marked as spam, or scam, or not legit.
The job was a local one.
Ie, you couldn't do it over the internet, or the phone.
You also did not have to pay any money for materials or supplies.
Those to items seemed to help the legitimacy of our ads, and we would include both in the ads, but the reputation referenced by the parent is certainly there.
There are work at home jobs, and many are legit.
Unfortunately, scammers have found that there are many many people who will pay lots of money for the convenience of some impossible task that pays pennies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376236</id>
	<title>No, really?!</title>
	<author>IBBoard</author>
	<datestamp>1259590740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Kate Lister, author of Undress for Success -- The Naked Truth about Making Money at Home, estimates that more than 95\% of Google hits on the words 'work at home' are scams, link to scams, or other dead ends."</p></div></blockquote><p>Say it isn't true. How ever could someone be so cruel as to scam people who just want to do minimal work, never leave the house, and yet still make thousands per week?</p><p>Actually, to be fair, I didn't think that many would be scams - I thought a bigger proportion would be money laundering exercises.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Kate Lister , author of Undress for Success -- The Naked Truth about Making Money at Home , estimates that more than 95 \ % of Google hits on the words 'work at home ' are scams , link to scams , or other dead ends .
" Say it is n't true .
How ever could someone be so cruel as to scam people who just want to do minimal work , never leave the house , and yet still make thousands per week ? Actually , to be fair , I did n't think that many would be scams - I thought a bigger proportion would be money laundering exercises .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Kate Lister, author of Undress for Success -- The Naked Truth about Making Money at Home, estimates that more than 95\% of Google hits on the words 'work at home' are scams, link to scams, or other dead ends.
"Say it isn't true.
How ever could someone be so cruel as to scam people who just want to do minimal work, never leave the house, and yet still make thousands per week?Actually, to be fair, I didn't think that many would be scams - I thought a bigger proportion would be money laundering exercises.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378006</id>
	<title>threestarsinc.com</title>
	<author>dbreeze</author>
	<datestamp>1259602740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> I'll believe Google is serious about stopping fraud when they make it easier to report the hordes of affiliates of <a href="http://www.threestarsinc.com/" title="threestarsinc.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.threestarsinc.com/</a> [threestarsinc.com]  who use Gmail accounts to abuse the craigslist job boards. If you'll check this page: <a href="http://www.threestarsinc.biz/" title="threestarsinc.biz" rel="nofollow">http://www.threestarsinc.biz/</a> [threestarsinc.biz] they spell out their business plan to use job seekers as a quality target for marketers.<br>
&nbsp; While it may be legit on the the face of it, when combined with their pyramid-like rankings for job applicants who drive more traffic to their sites it has ruined job searching on craigslist. I have wasted MANY hours composing replies to ads only to get the auto-replies directing me to one of their many "front" websites where they collect your information and have you apply for online education and such.<br>
&nbsp; I spent another couple of hours trying to figure out how to report the abused Gmail accounts to Google. Only after creating a gmail account to gain access to and search their forum did I find a link for reporting abuse which gave an error when submitted. I now just flag any craigslist ad that uses a gmail address to reply.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll believe Google is serious about stopping fraud when they make it easier to report the hordes of affiliates of http : //www.threestarsinc.com/ [ threestarsinc.com ] who use Gmail accounts to abuse the craigslist job boards .
If you 'll check this page : http : //www.threestarsinc.biz/ [ threestarsinc.biz ] they spell out their business plan to use job seekers as a quality target for marketers .
  While it may be legit on the the face of it , when combined with their pyramid-like rankings for job applicants who drive more traffic to their sites it has ruined job searching on craigslist .
I have wasted MANY hours composing replies to ads only to get the auto-replies directing me to one of their many " front " websites where they collect your information and have you apply for online education and such .
  I spent another couple of hours trying to figure out how to report the abused Gmail accounts to Google .
Only after creating a gmail account to gain access to and search their forum did I find a link for reporting abuse which gave an error when submitted .
I now just flag any craigslist ad that uses a gmail address to reply .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'll believe Google is serious about stopping fraud when they make it easier to report the hordes of affiliates of http://www.threestarsinc.com/ [threestarsinc.com]  who use Gmail accounts to abuse the craigslist job boards.
If you'll check this page: http://www.threestarsinc.biz/ [threestarsinc.biz] they spell out their business plan to use job seekers as a quality target for marketers.
  While it may be legit on the the face of it, when combined with their pyramid-like rankings for job applicants who drive more traffic to their sites it has ruined job searching on craigslist.
I have wasted MANY hours composing replies to ads only to get the auto-replies directing me to one of their many "front" websites where they collect your information and have you apply for online education and such.
  I spent another couple of hours trying to figure out how to report the abused Gmail accounts to Google.
Only after creating a gmail account to gain access to and search their forum did I find a link for reporting abuse which gave an error when submitted.
I now just flag any craigslist ad that uses a gmail address to reply.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378518</id>
	<title>Re:No, really?!</title>
	<author>ubrgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1259605500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd hardly go to people working naked for help with any kind of laundering.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd hardly go to people working naked for help with any kind of laundering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd hardly go to people working naked for help with any kind of laundering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30379150</id>
	<title>I used to do this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259608800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to do this when I was a teenager. It was one of the three classic telemarketing schemes in Montreal (paper rolls for debit machines was next, listings in fake yellow page magazines is the other). Derog is what made me the most money though.</p><p>Telemarketing companies would pick up leads that contained a high level of people with debt across many high interest credit cards (regular/department store/etc) and offered them a low interest rate credit card where they can stuff all their debt on to, for the cost of thousands.</p><p>The trick to convincing them was:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"But sir, this is not really an out of pocket expense since the interest savings will pay for it."</p></div><p>Since most people on the lead sheets got into the position they are in because they were never good at budgeting to begin with, that line was the line that sealed the deal.</p><p>Of course, the caveat to this plan is that you've simply just got a new credit card, and freed up your others to spend more with and really fuck yourself over. So really, the scheme was akin to a sub prime mortgage on your DEBT.</p><p>Naturally, when you're sixteen and realize that you could make a hundreds if not a thousand in a week of part time work, the grand scale of what you're doing isn't obvious.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to do this when I was a teenager .
It was one of the three classic telemarketing schemes in Montreal ( paper rolls for debit machines was next , listings in fake yellow page magazines is the other ) .
Derog is what made me the most money though.Telemarketing companies would pick up leads that contained a high level of people with debt across many high interest credit cards ( regular/department store/etc ) and offered them a low interest rate credit card where they can stuff all their debt on to , for the cost of thousands.The trick to convincing them was : " But sir , this is not really an out of pocket expense since the interest savings will pay for it .
" Since most people on the lead sheets got into the position they are in because they were never good at budgeting to begin with , that line was the line that sealed the deal.Of course , the caveat to this plan is that you 've simply just got a new credit card , and freed up your others to spend more with and really fuck yourself over .
So really , the scheme was akin to a sub prime mortgage on your DEBT.Naturally , when you 're sixteen and realize that you could make a hundreds if not a thousand in a week of part time work , the grand scale of what you 're doing is n't obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to do this when I was a teenager.
It was one of the three classic telemarketing schemes in Montreal (paper rolls for debit machines was next, listings in fake yellow page magazines is the other).
Derog is what made me the most money though.Telemarketing companies would pick up leads that contained a high level of people with debt across many high interest credit cards (regular/department store/etc) and offered them a low interest rate credit card where they can stuff all their debt on to, for the cost of thousands.The trick to convincing them was:"But sir, this is not really an out of pocket expense since the interest savings will pay for it.
"Since most people on the lead sheets got into the position they are in because they were never good at budgeting to begin with, that line was the line that sealed the deal.Of course, the caveat to this plan is that you've simply just got a new credit card, and freed up your others to spend more with and really fuck yourself over.
So really, the scheme was akin to a sub prime mortgage on your DEBT.Naturally, when you're sixteen and realize that you could make a hundreds if not a thousand in a week of part time work, the grand scale of what you're doing isn't obvious.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378102</id>
	<title>Re:"Google Go"?</title>
	<author>SomeJoel</author>
	<datestamp>1259603400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What exactly can a programming language come after scammers in?</p></div><p>That makes no sense.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It makes no sense!</p></div><p>Oh right, you knew that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly can a programming language come after scammers in ? That makes no sense.It makes no sense ! Oh right , you knew that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly can a programming language come after scammers in?That makes no sense.It makes no sense!Oh right, you knew that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30379640</id>
	<title>Re:"Google Go"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259611560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>@scams = scan;<br>foreach (@scams) {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; chop;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; split;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; kill;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; die; die; die;<br>}</p><p>It's doable in Perl...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>@ scams = scan ; foreach ( @ scams ) {     chop ;     split ;     kill ;     die ; die ; die ; } It 's doable in Perl.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>@scams = scan;foreach (@scams) {
    chop;
    split;
    kill;
    die; die; die;}It's doable in Perl...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378072</id>
	<title>Re:No, really?!</title>
	<author>The Archon V2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1259603160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Say it isn't true. How ever could someone be so cruel as to scam people who just want to do minimal work, never leave the house, and yet still make thousands per week?</p></div><p>Because running a work-at-home scam requires minimal work, you never have to leave the house, and you still make thousands per week.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Say it is n't true .
How ever could someone be so cruel as to scam people who just want to do minimal work , never leave the house , and yet still make thousands per week ? Because running a work-at-home scam requires minimal work , you never have to leave the house , and you still make thousands per week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say it isn't true.
How ever could someone be so cruel as to scam people who just want to do minimal work, never leave the house, and yet still make thousands per week?Because running a work-at-home scam requires minimal work, you never have to leave the house, and you still make thousands per week.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376864</id>
	<title>"Google Go"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259595900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What exactly can a programming language come after scammers in? It makes no sense!</htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly can a programming language come after scammers in ?
It makes no sense !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly can a programming language come after scammers in?
It makes no sense!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378812</id>
	<title>Only 95\%?</title>
	<author>pluther</author>
	<datestamp>1259607060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean that 5\% of the links are actual legitimate opportunities for me to work at home and earn thousands of dollars a week in my spare time?</p><p>*That* should be the headline here.</p><p>Are 5\% of the penis enlargement ads legitimate, too??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean that 5 \ % of the links are actual legitimate opportunities for me to work at home and earn thousands of dollars a week in my spare time ?
* That * should be the headline here.Are 5 \ % of the penis enlargement ads legitimate , too ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean that 5\% of the links are actual legitimate opportunities for me to work at home and earn thousands of dollars a week in my spare time?
*That* should be the headline here.Are 5\% of the penis enlargement ads legitimate, too?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376630</id>
	<title>Scams</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1259594040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>estimates that more than 95\% of Google hits on the words 'work at home' are scams, link to scams, or other dead ends</p></div><p>If this is true, doesn't the FTC fraud department have it's job already done for it?   If it were 5\%, the fraud department would have to really work to find a scam, in this case, just click on a link, and viola, someone to prosecute.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>estimates that more than 95 \ % of Google hits on the words 'work at home ' are scams , link to scams , or other dead endsIf this is true , does n't the FTC fraud department have it 's job already done for it ?
If it were 5 \ % , the fraud department would have to really work to find a scam , in this case , just click on a link , and viola , someone to prosecute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>estimates that more than 95\% of Google hits on the words 'work at home' are scams, link to scams, or other dead endsIf this is true, doesn't the FTC fraud department have it's job already done for it?
If it were 5\%, the fraud department would have to really work to find a scam, in this case, just click on a link, and viola, someone to prosecute.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378076</id>
	<title>Re:Self-interest</title>
	<author>IQgryn</author>
	<datestamp>1259603220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and why should they be?  They're not law enforcement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and why should they be ?
They 're not law enforcement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and why should they be?
They're not law enforcement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30379886</id>
	<title>Re:No, really?!</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1259613240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>What ended up happening to him?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What ended up happening to him ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What ended up happening to him?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376232</id>
	<title>Work at home...</title>
	<author>conureman</author>
	<datestamp>1259590680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>scam.</p><p>old news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>scam.old news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>scam.old news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30380766</id>
	<title>Re:Undress for success?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259575080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn, your hideous and grotesque body (poetic paraphrasing, my bad) just made 3 bucks.  Maybe this work-at-home-naked-in-front-of-your-webcam thing may not be that much of a scam after all.  Let me just go ahead and take off my rob and wizard hat here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn , your hideous and grotesque body ( poetic paraphrasing , my bad ) just made 3 bucks .
Maybe this work-at-home-naked-in-front-of-your-webcam thing may not be that much of a scam after all .
Let me just go ahead and take off my rob and wizard hat here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn, your hideous and grotesque body (poetic paraphrasing, my bad) just made 3 bucks.
Maybe this work-at-home-naked-in-front-of-your-webcam thing may not be that much of a scam after all.
Let me just go ahead and take off my rob and wizard hat here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30377098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30381850</id>
	<title>Re:No, really?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259579700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Kate Lister, author of Undress for Success -- The Naked Truth about Making Money at Home,"</p><p>Undress, naked at home?</p><p>Is there a bed involved?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Kate Lister , author of Undress for Success -- The Naked Truth about Making Money at Home , " Undress , naked at home ? Is there a bed involved ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Kate Lister, author of Undress for Success -- The Naked Truth about Making Money at Home,"Undress, naked at home?Is there a bed involved?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376316</id>
	<title>so, is Google going to stop running scam ads?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259591700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, thought not.</p><p>Going to stop offering AdWords on those scam domain squatting pages?</p><p>No, thought not.</p><p>Going to give back the money to advertisers when they close down scam sites on which adverts have been displayed?</p><p>No, thought not.</p><p>Thank goodness there's helpful competition in Internet advertising brokerage.</p><p>No, thought not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , thought not.Going to stop offering AdWords on those scam domain squatting pages ? No , thought not.Going to give back the money to advertisers when they close down scam sites on which adverts have been displayed ? No , thought not.Thank goodness there 's helpful competition in Internet advertising brokerage.No , thought not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, thought not.Going to stop offering AdWords on those scam domain squatting pages?No, thought not.Going to give back the money to advertisers when they close down scam sites on which adverts have been displayed?No, thought not.Thank goodness there's helpful competition in Internet advertising brokerage.No, thought not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378652</id>
	<title>My scheme - not a scam</title>
	<author>Hal\_Porter</author>
	<datestamp>1259606040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Advertising saying "Send me &pound;5 and I will tell you the secret of making money". When then send you cash tell them the secret is to advertise saying "Send me &pound;5 and I will tell you the secret of making money"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Advertising saying " Send me   5 and I will tell you the secret of making money " .
When then send you cash tell them the secret is to advertise saying " Send me   5 and I will tell you the secret of making money "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Advertising saying "Send me £5 and I will tell you the secret of making money".
When then send you cash tell them the secret is to advertise saying "Send me £5 and I will tell you the secret of making money"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376188</id>
	<title>Cool</title>
	<author>Cwix</author>
	<datestamp>1259590020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I got mentioned in the post:-D  Yay Me, I feel important now.  Back on topic... Im glad google is suing these scammers, still not sure google isn't evil thou.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I got mentioned in the post : -D Yay Me , I feel important now .
Back on topic... Im glad google is suing these scammers , still not sure google is n't evil thou .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got mentioned in the post:-D  Yay Me, I feel important now.
Back on topic... Im glad google is suing these scammers, still not sure google isn't evil thou.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378162</id>
	<title>Re:No, really?!</title>
	<author>jittles</author>
	<datestamp>1259603640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had a roommate in college that I believe was caught up in a money-laundering scam.  He was processing magazine subscriptions and he had to give the "company" he was working for access to his bank account.  The first week of the "business" they deposited $50,000 into his bank account.  They then had a constant stream of $1000-2000 transactions into and out of his account.  I tried to warn him but he was making $20/hr and didn't want to believe it could be a scam.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a roommate in college that I believe was caught up in a money-laundering scam .
He was processing magazine subscriptions and he had to give the " company " he was working for access to his bank account .
The first week of the " business " they deposited $ 50,000 into his bank account .
They then had a constant stream of $ 1000-2000 transactions into and out of his account .
I tried to warn him but he was making $ 20/hr and did n't want to believe it could be a scam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a roommate in college that I believe was caught up in a money-laundering scam.
He was processing magazine subscriptions and he had to give the "company" he was working for access to his bank account.
The first week of the "business" they deposited $50,000 into his bank account.
They then had a constant stream of $1000-2000 transactions into and out of his account.
I tried to warn him but he was making $20/hr and didn't want to believe it could be a scam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378366</id>
	<title>Re:Self-interest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259604840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if google will be willing to use its huge database (searchresults/e-mails) to track down these scammers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if google will be willing to use its huge database ( searchresults/e-mails ) to track down these scammers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if google will be willing to use its huge database (searchresults/e-mails) to track down these scammers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30457832</id>
	<title>Re:No, really?!</title>
	<author>jittles</author>
	<datestamp>1259683920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No idea.  He got married about 6 months after that, we went our separate ways and I eventually moved out of that town.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No idea .
He got married about 6 months after that , we went our separate ways and I eventually moved out of that town .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No idea.
He got married about 6 months after that, we went our separate ways and I eventually moved out of that town.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30379886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376516</id>
	<title>Self-interest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259593260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google isn't going after scammers in general for the good of the public.  From TFA:</p><blockquote><div><p>
Google said it has not created or endorsed advertisements such as "Use Google to make 1000s of Dollars!"
</p><p>...</p><p>Google's name is often used in such schemes because of its recognizable branding and good reputation.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>They're going after someone who is threatening their name, trademark and reputation. You can bet that if it had read "Use Bing to make 1000s of Dollars", Google wouldn't be involved.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is n't going after scammers in general for the good of the public .
From TFA : Google said it has not created or endorsed advertisements such as " Use Google to make 1000s of Dollars !
" ...Google 's name is often used in such schemes because of its recognizable branding and good reputation .
They 're going after someone who is threatening their name , trademark and reputation .
You can bet that if it had read " Use Bing to make 1000s of Dollars " , Google would n't be involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google isn't going after scammers in general for the good of the public.
From TFA:
Google said it has not created or endorsed advertisements such as "Use Google to make 1000s of Dollars!
"
...Google's name is often used in such schemes because of its recognizable branding and good reputation.
They're going after someone who is threatening their name, trademark and reputation.
You can bet that if it had read "Use Bing to make 1000s of Dollars", Google wouldn't be involved.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376538</id>
	<title>Re:so, is Google going to stop running scam ads?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259593380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does it matter?<p>If I see an advertisement on those Google Adwords or Adsense or whatever, I automatically think they're a scam. It's the same with <i>any and all</i> telemarketers (charities included!), spam email, and junk mail.</p><p>If they're not a scam and if they offer a decent service at a decent price, I will probably find them when I'm shopping for services that they offer - regardless if they advertise with Google or not. </p><p>How do I know if they're legit?</p><p>I search:</p><ol> <li>BBB.org</li><li>FTV.gov</li><li>RipoffReport.com</li><li>Google [their names] complaints</li><li>Resellerratings.com</li><li>And others that may be specific to the industry...like FINRA.org for some financial things.</li></ol><p>Of course, the above list isn't foolproof. If a company just started out, there won't be anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does it matter ? If I see an advertisement on those Google Adwords or Adsense or whatever , I automatically think they 're a scam .
It 's the same with any and all telemarketers ( charities included !
) , spam email , and junk mail.If they 're not a scam and if they offer a decent service at a decent price , I will probably find them when I 'm shopping for services that they offer - regardless if they advertise with Google or not .
How do I know if they 're legit ? I search : BBB.orgFTV.govRipoffReport.comGoogle [ their names ] complaintsResellerratings.comAnd others that may be specific to the industry...like FINRA.org for some financial things.Of course , the above list is n't foolproof .
If a company just started out , there wo n't be anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does it matter?If I see an advertisement on those Google Adwords or Adsense or whatever, I automatically think they're a scam.
It's the same with any and all telemarketers (charities included!
), spam email, and junk mail.If they're not a scam and if they offer a decent service at a decent price, I will probably find them when I'm shopping for services that they offer - regardless if they advertise with Google or not.
How do I know if they're legit?I search: BBB.orgFTV.govRipoffReport.comGoogle [their names] complaintsResellerratings.comAnd others that may be specific to the industry...like FINRA.org for some financial things.Of course, the above list isn't foolproof.
If a company just started out, there won't be anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378022</id>
	<title>Consulting?</title>
	<author>phorm</author>
	<datestamp>1259602860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That reminds me of <a href="http://www.despair.com/consulting.html" title="despair.com" rel="nofollow">this</a> [despair.com] item from despair.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That reminds me of this [ despair.com ] item from despair.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That reminds me of this [despair.com] item from despair.com</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376476</id>
	<title>Re:so, is Google going to stop running scam ads?</title>
	<author>aBaldrich</author>
	<datestamp>1259593020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, the article said:<p><div class="quote"><p>The company also said it would permanently disable Google AdWords accounts that provide a "poor or harmful" user experience whether or not they use Google's trademark illegally.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the article said : The company also said it would permanently disable Google AdWords accounts that provide a " poor or harmful " user experience whether or not they use Google 's trademark illegally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the article said:The company also said it would permanently disable Google AdWords accounts that provide a "poor or harmful" user experience whether or not they use Google's trademark illegally.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30380262</id>
	<title>I got phoned at work by this scam yesterday</title>
	<author>WillAffleckUW</author>
	<datestamp>1259572320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yesterday I got robocalled by this scam at work - which, since I don't ever give out my work phone to a credit card company or bank, know to be bogus.</p><p>The FTC needs to shoot to kill the people who do this, and then give their lifeless corpses a fair trial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yesterday I got robocalled by this scam at work - which , since I do n't ever give out my work phone to a credit card company or bank , know to be bogus.The FTC needs to shoot to kill the people who do this , and then give their lifeless corpses a fair trial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yesterday I got robocalled by this scam at work - which, since I don't ever give out my work phone to a credit card company or bank, know to be bogus.The FTC needs to shoot to kill the people who do this, and then give their lifeless corpses a fair trial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378474</id>
	<title>Robocalls</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259605320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I get a robocall from "Card Services" every few days. They never phone when I'm at home, so I can't tell
them what I think of them. I also get robocalls offering me a new home security system, and
vacations to various locations.

</p><p>...laura</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I get a robocall from " Card Services " every few days .
They never phone when I 'm at home , so I ca n't tell them what I think of them .
I also get robocalls offering me a new home security system , and vacations to various locations .
...laura</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get a robocall from "Card Services" every few days.
They never phone when I'm at home, so I can't tell
them what I think of them.
I also get robocalls offering me a new home security system, and
vacations to various locations.
...laura</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2343217_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30380766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30377098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2343217_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2343217_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2343217_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2343217_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30457832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30379886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2343217_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30379640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2343217_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2343217_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2343217_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2343217_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378076
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2343217_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30381850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2343217_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2343217_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30377150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2343217.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378812
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2343217.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2343217.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30377098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30380766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2343217.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2343217.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30380262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2343217.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30379640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2343217.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2343217.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376630
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2343217.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30377150
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2343217.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2343217.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30379886
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30457832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30381850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378022
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2343217.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30376516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2343217.30378366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
