<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_20_138226</id>
	<title>Call To "Open Source" AIG Investigation</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1261319580000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>VValdo writes <i>"As you may recall, the citizens of the US <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122156561931242905.html">shelled out about $85 billion</a> to bail out AIG and its creditors (Goldman Sachs in particular) last year.  But as 80\% owners of AIG, we still don't know what happened, exactly.  That may change.  In a new op-ed piece, former prosecutors (including former NY governor Eliot Spitzer) are calling for the US Treasury to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/opinion/20partnoy.html?hp">force AIG to release its treasure-trove of emails <em>to the public</em></a> before allowing AIG to 'break free' of our control.  As the prosecutors put it, 'By putting the evidence online, the government could establish a new form of "open source" investigation.  Once the documents are available for everyone to inspect, a thousand journalistic flowers can bloom, as reporters, victims and angry citizens have a chance to piece together the story.'  Good idea?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>VValdo writes " As you may recall , the citizens of the US shelled out about $ 85 billion to bail out AIG and its creditors ( Goldman Sachs in particular ) last year .
But as 80 \ % owners of AIG , we still do n't know what happened , exactly .
That may change .
In a new op-ed piece , former prosecutors ( including former NY governor Eliot Spitzer ) are calling for the US Treasury to force AIG to release its treasure-trove of emails to the public before allowing AIG to 'break free ' of our control .
As the prosecutors put it , 'By putting the evidence online , the government could establish a new form of " open source " investigation .
Once the documents are available for everyone to inspect , a thousand journalistic flowers can bloom , as reporters , victims and angry citizens have a chance to piece together the story .
' Good idea ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>VValdo writes "As you may recall, the citizens of the US shelled out about $85 billion to bail out AIG and its creditors (Goldman Sachs in particular) last year.
But as 80\% owners of AIG, we still don't know what happened, exactly.
That may change.
In a new op-ed piece, former prosecutors (including former NY governor Eliot Spitzer) are calling for the US Treasury to force AIG to release its treasure-trove of emails to the public before allowing AIG to 'break free' of our control.
As the prosecutors put it, 'By putting the evidence online, the government could establish a new form of "open source" investigation.
Once the documents are available for everyone to inspect, a thousand journalistic flowers can bloom, as reporters, victims and angry citizens have a chance to piece together the story.
'  Good idea?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30505852</id>
	<title>No, she'd make buying a Mac MANDATORY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261340700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, she'd make buying a Mac MANDATORY.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , she 'd make buying a Mac MANDATORY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, she'd make buying a Mac MANDATORY.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30510100</id>
	<title>Re:Wonderfull Idea</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1261389840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who is PJ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is PJ ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is PJ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30512376</id>
	<title>Re:Not quite</title>
	<author>warrior\_s</author>
	<datestamp>1261412880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A stockholder company has a wide range of fiduciary issues. It's very likely that if the government, as 80\% owner, tried to force corporate secrets into the open that the other 20\% could sue them for abandoning their responsibility to the company.</p></div><p>
We don't want the secrets to be open, we just want the one who owns the 80\% company (i.e., we the people) to know those secrets.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A stockholder company has a wide range of fiduciary issues .
It 's very likely that if the government , as 80 \ % owner , tried to force corporate secrets into the open that the other 20 \ % could sue them for abandoning their responsibility to the company .
We do n't want the secrets to be open , we just want the one who owns the 80 \ % company ( i.e. , we the people ) to know those secrets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A stockholder company has a wide range of fiduciary issues.
It's very likely that if the government, as 80\% owner, tried to force corporate secrets into the open that the other 20\% could sue them for abandoning their responsibility to the company.
We don't want the secrets to be open, we just want the one who owns the 80\% company (i.e., we the people) to know those secrets.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504210</id>
	<title>Good idea?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261327920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hell, yah!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell , yah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell, yah!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30527130</id>
	<title>Fickle Eyes</title>
	<author>manlygeek</author>
	<datestamp>1261512900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, this is one of those ideas that sounds good the first time you hear it but requires a "shoe on the other foot" perspective to see just how bad it is.  Lets say for a moment, that it was your whole life opened for every tom, dick and harry to see.  Would you like every one of your emails, receipts, bank records, blog entries, facebook submissions, etc all laid out for everyone to see.  Suppose you did absolutely nothing wrong at all.  How much of your time to do think would be required to answer the lame ass public who didn't understand that late night run to Taco Bell, your penchant for overpriced Starbucks coffee, or the need to have a flat screen TV in your bathroom.  Ah, but you say, I haven't received taxpayer money like AIG.  Really?  No school loans, no unemployment, no subsidized food products.  How about that tax rebate we all got in 2008 to help stimulate the economy.  We taxpayers would like to know EXACTLY how YOU spent that money?  So are you willing to let the entire globe, or at least the American public see that?

I definitely think AIG, Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, blah, blah, etc, etc, should pay back the money, and if they can't do that in a reasonable time, let the pros investigate them, the people who actually have a clue about what are appropriate business practices and what are not, rather than some joe six pack who sucks off the government teet themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , this is one of those ideas that sounds good the first time you hear it but requires a " shoe on the other foot " perspective to see just how bad it is .
Lets say for a moment , that it was your whole life opened for every tom , dick and harry to see .
Would you like every one of your emails , receipts , bank records , blog entries , facebook submissions , etc all laid out for everyone to see .
Suppose you did absolutely nothing wrong at all .
How much of your time to do think would be required to answer the lame ass public who did n't understand that late night run to Taco Bell , your penchant for overpriced Starbucks coffee , or the need to have a flat screen TV in your bathroom .
Ah , but you say , I have n't received taxpayer money like AIG .
Really ? No school loans , no unemployment , no subsidized food products .
How about that tax rebate we all got in 2008 to help stimulate the economy .
We taxpayers would like to know EXACTLY how YOU spent that money ?
So are you willing to let the entire globe , or at least the American public see that ?
I definitely think AIG , Fanny Mae , Freddy Mac , blah , blah , etc , etc , should pay back the money , and if they ca n't do that in a reasonable time , let the pros investigate them , the people who actually have a clue about what are appropriate business practices and what are not , rather than some joe six pack who sucks off the government teet themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, this is one of those ideas that sounds good the first time you hear it but requires a "shoe on the other foot" perspective to see just how bad it is.
Lets say for a moment, that it was your whole life opened for every tom, dick and harry to see.
Would you like every one of your emails, receipts, bank records, blog entries, facebook submissions, etc all laid out for everyone to see.
Suppose you did absolutely nothing wrong at all.
How much of your time to do think would be required to answer the lame ass public who didn't understand that late night run to Taco Bell, your penchant for overpriced Starbucks coffee, or the need to have a flat screen TV in your bathroom.
Ah, but you say, I haven't received taxpayer money like AIG.
Really?  No school loans, no unemployment, no subsidized food products.
How about that tax rebate we all got in 2008 to help stimulate the economy.
We taxpayers would like to know EXACTLY how YOU spent that money?
So are you willing to let the entire globe, or at least the American public see that?
I definitely think AIG, Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, blah, blah, etc, etc, should pay back the money, and if they can't do that in a reasonable time, let the pros investigate them, the people who actually have a clue about what are appropriate business practices and what are not, rather than some joe six pack who sucks off the government teet themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504346</id>
	<title>Really Bad Idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261328880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a really, really bad idea.</p><p>
For an example of why you have to look no further that the so called 'ClimateGate' scandal.  Here you had a bunch of people 'cherry picking' phrases and code segments then using them completely out of context to cause  a major up roar.  Which because of its simplicity of presentation was able to draw in the masses of the uninformed public, media included, who took what was presented to them at face value simply because they wanted to believe.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a really , really bad idea .
For an example of why you have to look no further that the so called 'ClimateGate ' scandal .
Here you had a bunch of people 'cherry picking ' phrases and code segments then using them completely out of context to cause a major up roar .
Which because of its simplicity of presentation was able to draw in the masses of the uninformed public , media included , who took what was presented to them at face value simply because they wanted to believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a really, really bad idea.
For an example of why you have to look no further that the so called 'ClimateGate' scandal.
Here you had a bunch of people 'cherry picking' phrases and code segments then using them completely out of context to cause  a major up roar.
Which because of its simplicity of presentation was able to draw in the masses of the uninformed public, media included, who took what was presented to them at face value simply because they wanted to believe.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30505436</id>
	<title>Fuck open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261337100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do you fucks have to label everything "open source" that you agree with? It's not open source and all you're doing is watering down what open source really stands for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you fucks have to label everything " open source " that you agree with ?
It 's not open source and all you 're doing is watering down what open source really stands for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you fucks have to label everything "open source" that you agree with?
It's not open source and all you're doing is watering down what open source really stands for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30505158</id>
	<title>Re:Not quite</title>
	<author>jimbolauski</author>
	<datestamp>1261334820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Plus the government does not own a single voting share, the 85 billion was for 80\% equity stake, all this means is that if AIG sells it self the government gets 80\%, further the terms of the buyback were just that a certain interest rate was to be payed to buy back the notes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus the government does not own a single voting share , the 85 billion was for 80 \ % equity stake , all this means is that if AIG sells it self the government gets 80 \ % , further the terms of the buyback were just that a certain interest rate was to be payed to buy back the notes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus the government does not own a single voting share, the 85 billion was for 80\% equity stake, all this means is that if AIG sells it self the government gets 80\%, further the terms of the buyback were just that a certain interest rate was to be payed to buy back the notes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504180</id>
	<title>Re:Keep Dreaming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261327740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is exactly right.</p><p>And it's not just Goldman.  The whole financial industry counts on a certain amount of privacy (secrecy, really).  The entire financial sector, and all of the regulators who move back and forth between jobs in the private sector and the government would never allow this to happen.  They wouldn't even see it as putting in the fix or being corrupt -- it would seem totally unthinkable and nonsensical to them.</p><p>Money rules the world.  The people in America bow down to those guys just like everyone else does.  We have it a lot better than most -- at least they don't fight wars here to loot our resources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly right.And it 's not just Goldman .
The whole financial industry counts on a certain amount of privacy ( secrecy , really ) .
The entire financial sector , and all of the regulators who move back and forth between jobs in the private sector and the government would never allow this to happen .
They would n't even see it as putting in the fix or being corrupt -- it would seem totally unthinkable and nonsensical to them.Money rules the world .
The people in America bow down to those guys just like everyone else does .
We have it a lot better than most -- at least they do n't fight wars here to loot our resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly right.And it's not just Goldman.
The whole financial industry counts on a certain amount of privacy (secrecy, really).
The entire financial sector, and all of the regulators who move back and forth between jobs in the private sector and the government would never allow this to happen.
They wouldn't even see it as putting in the fix or being corrupt -- it would seem totally unthinkable and nonsensical to them.Money rules the world.
The people in America bow down to those guys just like everyone else does.
We have it a lot better than most -- at least they don't fight wars here to loot our resources.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30508832</id>
	<title>Re:Yes.</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1261328520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You own your house and owe your mortgage company 80\% of the value of the house. In addition, you have your house as collateral in the loan the mortgage company gave you. They certainly do NOT own the house. And hence have 0 rights over it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You own your house and owe your mortgage company 80 \ % of the value of the house .
In addition , you have your house as collateral in the loan the mortgage company gave you .
They certainly do NOT own the house .
And hence have 0 rights over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You own your house and owe your mortgage company 80\% of the value of the house.
In addition, you have your house as collateral in the loan the mortgage company gave you.
They certainly do NOT own the house.
And hence have 0 rights over it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504838</id>
	<title>Grandstander Eliot Spitzer thinks its a good idea</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1261332420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ordinarily, I would think this might be a good idea. However, Eliot Spitzer is among those calling for it. In the past there were several times where he called for "public accountability" of various corporations. Those seemed like good ideas too. They turned out to just be shakedowns and/or publicity opportunities to advance <strong>his</strong> political career, not attempts to serve the public interest. If an organization has Eliot Spitzer as a member, I will not believe that they are seeking something in the public interest. This is about serving the personal interests of the people calling for it, not about serving the public interest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ordinarily , I would think this might be a good idea .
However , Eliot Spitzer is among those calling for it .
In the past there were several times where he called for " public accountability " of various corporations .
Those seemed like good ideas too .
They turned out to just be shakedowns and/or publicity opportunities to advance his political career , not attempts to serve the public interest .
If an organization has Eliot Spitzer as a member , I will not believe that they are seeking something in the public interest .
This is about serving the personal interests of the people calling for it , not about serving the public interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ordinarily, I would think this might be a good idea.
However, Eliot Spitzer is among those calling for it.
In the past there were several times where he called for "public accountability" of various corporations.
Those seemed like good ideas too.
They turned out to just be shakedowns and/or publicity opportunities to advance his political career, not attempts to serve the public interest.
If an organization has Eliot Spitzer as a member, I will not believe that they are seeking something in the public interest.
This is about serving the personal interests of the people calling for it, not about serving the public interest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30511704</id>
	<title>Ingenious idea</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1261408860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only is it good, it should be mandatory, to open your source to the gov chosen rep that will sift through all the code for these supposed blank cheques that was evident during the process with that guy that stole 50 billion dollars. Every financial institution should at least pass some sort of NSA approved code review (as encryption does to become a standard).</p><p>I see no harm done, as you are not giving away bank account numbers or passwords, merely showing the code structure that will handle them. If a backdoor is discovered, this is where it becomes interesting. The banks are already liable for any fraud that is<br>criminal in nature, but they do not want to be responsible for any faults that are software related.</p><p>That big shell out was based on banks using softwares to automate the lending process and have a sort of AI for deciding who got loans. Too many got loans that should not have gotten, however, I should never have gotten my load, but I make sure that the honor I received to start fresh and be able to rebuild my credit, will not be lost on me. I am sure many people feel the same.</p><p>Not because you had bad credit before that you wont pay them back this time, however, I did not feel the pinch during the crisis, so<br>I can not speak for everyone in my situation. Sometimes it is nice to be given a break that some machine would never have given you<br>(well in this case a pickier machine).</p><p>I just hope that people understand banks need to be held accountable for what happened to the world economy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only is it good , it should be mandatory , to open your source to the gov chosen rep that will sift through all the code for these supposed blank cheques that was evident during the process with that guy that stole 50 billion dollars .
Every financial institution should at least pass some sort of NSA approved code review ( as encryption does to become a standard ) .I see no harm done , as you are not giving away bank account numbers or passwords , merely showing the code structure that will handle them .
If a backdoor is discovered , this is where it becomes interesting .
The banks are already liable for any fraud that iscriminal in nature , but they do not want to be responsible for any faults that are software related.That big shell out was based on banks using softwares to automate the lending process and have a sort of AI for deciding who got loans .
Too many got loans that should not have gotten , however , I should never have gotten my load , but I make sure that the honor I received to start fresh and be able to rebuild my credit , will not be lost on me .
I am sure many people feel the same.Not because you had bad credit before that you wont pay them back this time , however , I did not feel the pinch during the crisis , soI can not speak for everyone in my situation .
Sometimes it is nice to be given a break that some machine would never have given you ( well in this case a pickier machine ) .I just hope that people understand banks need to be held accountable for what happened to the world economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only is it good, it should be mandatory, to open your source to the gov chosen rep that will sift through all the code for these supposed blank cheques that was evident during the process with that guy that stole 50 billion dollars.
Every financial institution should at least pass some sort of NSA approved code review (as encryption does to become a standard).I see no harm done, as you are not giving away bank account numbers or passwords, merely showing the code structure that will handle them.
If a backdoor is discovered, this is where it becomes interesting.
The banks are already liable for any fraud that iscriminal in nature, but they do not want to be responsible for any faults that are software related.That big shell out was based on banks using softwares to automate the lending process and have a sort of AI for deciding who got loans.
Too many got loans that should not have gotten, however, I should never have gotten my load, but I make sure that the honor I received to start fresh and be able to rebuild my credit, will not be lost on me.
I am sure many people feel the same.Not because you had bad credit before that you wont pay them back this time, however, I did not feel the pinch during the crisis, soI can not speak for everyone in my situation.
Sometimes it is nice to be given a break that some machine would never have given you(well in this case a pickier machine).I just hope that people understand banks need to be held accountable for what happened to the world economy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30505138</id>
	<title>Paulson+Geitner+Berspankme=Criminal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261334760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are two time frames which require serious investigation.  The first is the period Sept 10-Sept 17.  What was said in these meetings?  Who was there? It is not even entirely clear that AIG would have failed so spectacularly had they been allowed (as proposed by NYS) to tap into some of the excess liquidity of the subs.  AIG, similar to Lehmans, was all about liquidity and the lack of access to short term lending facilities.  The marks that the CDS portfolio was set to take that quarter were survivable.  The cash crunch came from the securities lending side as well as some debatable collateral calls by the likes of Goldmans.   The government then decided to effectively do eniment domain on AIG - taking it from its shareholders (80\%, they would have done 100\% if law permitted) and making it a conduit to funnel money into other institutions.  There was <i>never</i> any serious consideration given to assisting AIG, either through relaxed regulation or temporary bridge financing (public or some mixture private/public) at rates similar to those given other institutions which were <i>far, far less punative.</i>.</p><p>Second, the time period when Treasury decided to force AIG to pay par on the CDS held by many of the counterparts, even though they were not entitled to par as most, if not all,  the underlying CDOs had not yet entered default.  Even so, CDS held by other institutions *never* paid at par, even when underlying bonds/structures had legitimately defaulted.  It was not uncommon to only receive 65 or 70c on the dollar.  Yet AIG was forced to make whole a slew of counterparts who at the least should have taken a sizable haircut if not been made to go to court to enforce their agreements if AIG had violated any of the terms.</p><p>Instead, not only did the government via Paulson/Geitner/Bernanke pay off the likes of Goldmans and Deutche, they hosed the US tax payer <i>as well as the shareholders of AIG</i>.  Some may object to the last but consider that all the above events, particularly those in early September, amounted to the pilfering of the AIG shareholders too.  Yes, they may ultimately have lost everything but the way things went down was a sham.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are two time frames which require serious investigation .
The first is the period Sept 10-Sept 17 .
What was said in these meetings ?
Who was there ?
It is not even entirely clear that AIG would have failed so spectacularly had they been allowed ( as proposed by NYS ) to tap into some of the excess liquidity of the subs .
AIG , similar to Lehmans , was all about liquidity and the lack of access to short term lending facilities .
The marks that the CDS portfolio was set to take that quarter were survivable .
The cash crunch came from the securities lending side as well as some debatable collateral calls by the likes of Goldmans .
The government then decided to effectively do eniment domain on AIG - taking it from its shareholders ( 80 \ % , they would have done 100 \ % if law permitted ) and making it a conduit to funnel money into other institutions .
There was never any serious consideration given to assisting AIG , either through relaxed regulation or temporary bridge financing ( public or some mixture private/public ) at rates similar to those given other institutions which were far , far less punative..Second , the time period when Treasury decided to force AIG to pay par on the CDS held by many of the counterparts , even though they were not entitled to par as most , if not all , the underlying CDOs had not yet entered default .
Even so , CDS held by other institutions * never * paid at par , even when underlying bonds/structures had legitimately defaulted .
It was not uncommon to only receive 65 or 70c on the dollar .
Yet AIG was forced to make whole a slew of counterparts who at the least should have taken a sizable haircut if not been made to go to court to enforce their agreements if AIG had violated any of the terms.Instead , not only did the government via Paulson/Geitner/Bernanke pay off the likes of Goldmans and Deutche , they hosed the US tax payer as well as the shareholders of AIG .
Some may object to the last but consider that all the above events , particularly those in early September , amounted to the pilfering of the AIG shareholders too .
Yes , they may ultimately have lost everything but the way things went down was a sham .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are two time frames which require serious investigation.
The first is the period Sept 10-Sept 17.
What was said in these meetings?
Who was there?
It is not even entirely clear that AIG would have failed so spectacularly had they been allowed (as proposed by NYS) to tap into some of the excess liquidity of the subs.
AIG, similar to Lehmans, was all about liquidity and the lack of access to short term lending facilities.
The marks that the CDS portfolio was set to take that quarter were survivable.
The cash crunch came from the securities lending side as well as some debatable collateral calls by the likes of Goldmans.
The government then decided to effectively do eniment domain on AIG - taking it from its shareholders (80\%, they would have done 100\% if law permitted) and making it a conduit to funnel money into other institutions.
There was never any serious consideration given to assisting AIG, either through relaxed regulation or temporary bridge financing (public or some mixture private/public) at rates similar to those given other institutions which were far, far less punative..Second, the time period when Treasury decided to force AIG to pay par on the CDS held by many of the counterparts, even though they were not entitled to par as most, if not all,  the underlying CDOs had not yet entered default.
Even so, CDS held by other institutions *never* paid at par, even when underlying bonds/structures had legitimately defaulted.
It was not uncommon to only receive 65 or 70c on the dollar.
Yet AIG was forced to make whole a slew of counterparts who at the least should have taken a sizable haircut if not been made to go to court to enforce their agreements if AIG had violated any of the terms.Instead, not only did the government via Paulson/Geitner/Bernanke pay off the likes of Goldmans and Deutche, they hosed the US tax payer as well as the shareholders of AIG.
Some may object to the last but consider that all the above events, particularly those in early September, amounted to the pilfering of the AIG shareholders too.
Yes, they may ultimately have lost everything but the way things went down was a sham.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503824</id>
	<title>Yes.</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1261323720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We own 80\% of AIG, so 80\% of AIG is technically part of the federal government. That means we should have open access to everything just like we should have open access to the Congress, senate, court system, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We own 80 \ % of AIG , so 80 \ % of AIG is technically part of the federal government .
That means we should have open access to everything just like we should have open access to the Congress , senate , court system , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We own 80\% of AIG, so 80\% of AIG is technically part of the federal government.
That means we should have open access to everything just like we should have open access to the Congress, senate, court system, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503858</id>
	<title>Will this be like the CRU emails?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261323960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will these e-mails be treated like the CRU emails were, where partisans of AGW defended conspirators clearly conspiring to fudge data, censor critics, and basically do whatever it takes to get their side presented as the consensus?</p><p>Here's hoping the AIG e-mails don't have an internet defense team consisting of bloggers plugging their ears and saying "la-la, I can't hear you".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will these e-mails be treated like the CRU emails were , where partisans of AGW defended conspirators clearly conspiring to fudge data , censor critics , and basically do whatever it takes to get their side presented as the consensus ? Here 's hoping the AIG e-mails do n't have an internet defense team consisting of bloggers plugging their ears and saying " la-la , I ca n't hear you " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will these e-mails be treated like the CRU emails were, where partisans of AGW defended conspirators clearly conspiring to fudge data, censor critics, and basically do whatever it takes to get their side presented as the consensus?Here's hoping the AIG e-mails don't have an internet defense team consisting of bloggers plugging their ears and saying "la-la, I can't hear you".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504498</id>
	<title>Mandatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261329900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But Spitzer consorted with prostitutes! He's as bad as Tiger Woods!</p><p>Won't somebody think of the children?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But Spitzer consorted with prostitutes !
He 's as bad as Tiger Woods ! Wo n't somebody think of the children ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Spitzer consorted with prostitutes!
He's as bad as Tiger Woods!Won't somebody think of the children?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30512234</id>
	<title>Open Source Investigation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261411980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think they call what Spitzer described a "witch hunt".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they call what Spitzer described a " witch hunt " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they call what Spitzer described a "witch hunt".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504926</id>
	<title>Audit the --- FED --- FIRST!!</title>
	<author>gd23ka</author>
	<datestamp>1261333080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And here's the way it'll happen:</p><p>Support Ron Paul's bill <a href="http://www.auditthefed.com/" title="auditthefed.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.auditthefed.com/</a> [auditthefed.com] and <a href="http://www.campaignforliberty.com/" title="campaignforliberty.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.campaignforliberty.com/</a> [campaignforliberty.com]</p><p>Why audit smalltime thieves when we could be coming after the GREATEST financial criminals this far into human history!!!</p><p>They stole trillions from us and wont tell us what they did with the money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And here 's the way it 'll happen : Support Ron Paul 's bill http : //www.auditthefed.com/ [ auditthefed.com ] and http : //www.campaignforliberty.com/ [ campaignforliberty.com ] Why audit smalltime thieves when we could be coming after the GREATEST financial criminals this far into human history ! !
! They stole trillions from us and wont tell us what they did with the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here's the way it'll happen:Support Ron Paul's bill http://www.auditthefed.com/ [auditthefed.com] and http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ [campaignforliberty.com]Why audit smalltime thieves when we could be coming after the GREATEST financial criminals this far into human history!!
!They stole trillions from us and wont tell us what they did with the money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30516108</id>
	<title>Some of my private emails may become private?</title>
	<author>robinstar1574</author>
	<datestamp>1261386540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>My god. My grandmother works for AIG. According to this lawsuit, some of the emails i have sent her will become public. D2N</htmltext>
<tokenext>My god .
My grandmother works for AIG .
According to this lawsuit , some of the emails i have sent her will become public .
D2N</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My god.
My grandmother works for AIG.
According to this lawsuit, some of the emails i have sent her will become public.
D2N</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30508884</id>
	<title>Re:The Risk</title>
	<author>fuzzlost</author>
	<datestamp>1261328940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How did this get modded up? TARP was allotted about $700,000,000,000. There are approx. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_population" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">308,195,000</a> [wikipedia.org] Americans, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation\_in\_the\_United\_States" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">138,000,000</a> [wikipedia.org] of which pay taxes. That is about $2,271.29 per American, or $5072.46 per taxpaying American.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How did this get modded up ?
TARP was allotted about $ 700,000,000,000 .
There are approx .
308,195,000 [ wikipedia.org ] Americans , 138,000,000 [ wikipedia.org ] of which pay taxes .
That is about $ 2,271.29 per American , or $ 5072.46 per taxpaying American .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did this get modded up?
TARP was allotted about $700,000,000,000.
There are approx.
308,195,000 [wikipedia.org] Americans, 138,000,000 [wikipedia.org] of which pay taxes.
That is about $2,271.29 per American, or $5072.46 per taxpaying American.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30506452</id>
	<title>Re:Hrmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261302300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and we're the retards who vote for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and we 're the retards who vote for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and we're the retards who vote for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503982</id>
	<title>Not quite</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1261325460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being 80\% owned does not integrate a corporation into the entity that owns it.  Trust me, Verizon has been using the exact theory for decades to lock Verizon Wireless workers out of the main Verizon company's collective bargaining agreement.  Also, ask the Rigases (who owned Adelphia) if full ownership entitles you to complete run of the company -- it can be a jailable offense if you go about owning the company you own to aggressively.</p><p>A stockholder company has a wide range of fiduciary issues.  It's very likely that if the government, as 80\% owner, tried to force corporate secrets into the open that the other 20\% could sue them for abandoning their responsibility to the company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being 80 \ % owned does not integrate a corporation into the entity that owns it .
Trust me , Verizon has been using the exact theory for decades to lock Verizon Wireless workers out of the main Verizon company 's collective bargaining agreement .
Also , ask the Rigases ( who owned Adelphia ) if full ownership entitles you to complete run of the company -- it can be a jailable offense if you go about owning the company you own to aggressively.A stockholder company has a wide range of fiduciary issues .
It 's very likely that if the government , as 80 \ % owner , tried to force corporate secrets into the open that the other 20 \ % could sue them for abandoning their responsibility to the company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being 80\% owned does not integrate a corporation into the entity that owns it.
Trust me, Verizon has been using the exact theory for decades to lock Verizon Wireless workers out of the main Verizon company's collective bargaining agreement.
Also, ask the Rigases (who owned Adelphia) if full ownership entitles you to complete run of the company -- it can be a jailable offense if you go about owning the company you own to aggressively.A stockholder company has a wide range of fiduciary issues.
It's very likely that if the government, as 80\% owner, tried to force corporate secrets into the open that the other 20\% could sue them for abandoning their responsibility to the company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504044</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>tomhath</author>
	<datestamp>1261326180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Restore the Glass&ndash;Steagall Act and separate commercial banking from investment banking.</p></div><p>Yes, several harmful changes to banking laws made during the nineties need to be rolled back, including the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community\_Reinvestment\_Act#Legislative\_changes\_1999" title="wikipedia.org">the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act</a> [wikipedia.org] as it was pushed through by Sens. Dodd and Schumer. Also the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community\_Reinvestment\_Act#Legislative\_changes\_1992" title="wikipedia.org">amendments passed in 1992</a> [wikipedia.org] which mandated banks make high risk loans they wouldn't have made otherwise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Restore the Glass    Steagall Act and separate commercial banking from investment banking.Yes , several harmful changes to banking laws made during the nineties need to be rolled back , including the the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act [ wikipedia.org ] as it was pushed through by Sens .
Dodd and Schumer .
Also the amendments passed in 1992 [ wikipedia.org ] which mandated banks make high risk loans they would n't have made otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Restore the Glass–Steagall Act and separate commercial banking from investment banking.Yes, several harmful changes to banking laws made during the nineties need to be rolled back, including the the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act [wikipedia.org] as it was pushed through by Sens.
Dodd and Schumer.
Also the amendments passed in 1992 [wikipedia.org] which mandated banks make high risk loans they wouldn't have made otherwise.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30507554</id>
	<title>Re:Yes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261312320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'd think that's right...problem is, it's not.</p><p>Understand that before anyone had HEARD "AIG" there were problems. The Fed made deals with AIG, who, like a lot of people, pays their high-fliers with bonuses at the end of the year, rather than weekly.</p><p>Imagine that. Getting paid ONLY once a year. Once a month is hard enough. But this kinda of thing is required, due to congressional interferance. (The kind that makes Conservatives' blood boil, btw).</p><p>They make a deal with AIG, basically gutting them for profits, putting controls on them, and then recently the media gets ahold of it. OOH! What a great time to foster hatred of the rich (From whom we get jobs, btw). The state-run media comes in and calls them names, puffs up the hate, and soon the SEIU, an Obama-buddy union organization, is scheduling bus trips to show people where "the evil money people live" and perhaps throw some rocks.</p><p>So these people who've been working all year for a single paycheck, give that paycheck back.</p><p>What about this seems fair to you? We 'own' them, yeah.  But isn't THAT even the wrong thing to do?</p><p>Why is money evil? No one ever demonstrates outside Democratic National Headquarters, George Soros' home, or the homes of dirty congressmen, ALL OF WHICH MAKE LARGE MULTIPLES OF WHAT WE DO.  THEY ARE "RICH" TOO.</p><p>So what makes them right, and non-supporters of congressmen wrong?</p><p>AH!  That's it.</p><p>[Guys, this is the way people have been played in every nation that's ever been taken down. Name your dictator. Stalin demonized the farmers until he had them killed. Then new people came to be farmers, who knew nothing, and almost everyone starved to death.  Oh! Except for those who supported the government.  WE NEED TO PAY ATTENTION HERE: WE'RE BEING PLAYED.]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd think that 's right...problem is , it 's not.Understand that before anyone had HEARD " AIG " there were problems .
The Fed made deals with AIG , who , like a lot of people , pays their high-fliers with bonuses at the end of the year , rather than weekly.Imagine that .
Getting paid ONLY once a year .
Once a month is hard enough .
But this kinda of thing is required , due to congressional interferance .
( The kind that makes Conservatives ' blood boil , btw ) .They make a deal with AIG , basically gutting them for profits , putting controls on them , and then recently the media gets ahold of it .
OOH ! What a great time to foster hatred of the rich ( From whom we get jobs , btw ) .
The state-run media comes in and calls them names , puffs up the hate , and soon the SEIU , an Obama-buddy union organization , is scheduling bus trips to show people where " the evil money people live " and perhaps throw some rocks.So these people who 've been working all year for a single paycheck , give that paycheck back.What about this seems fair to you ?
We 'own ' them , yeah .
But is n't THAT even the wrong thing to do ? Why is money evil ?
No one ever demonstrates outside Democratic National Headquarters , George Soros ' home , or the homes of dirty congressmen , ALL OF WHICH MAKE LARGE MULTIPLES OF WHAT WE DO .
THEY ARE " RICH " TOO.So what makes them right , and non-supporters of congressmen wrong ? AH !
That 's it .
[ Guys , this is the way people have been played in every nation that 's ever been taken down .
Name your dictator .
Stalin demonized the farmers until he had them killed .
Then new people came to be farmers , who knew nothing , and almost everyone starved to death .
Oh ! Except for those who supported the government .
WE NEED TO PAY ATTENTION HERE : WE 'RE BEING PLAYED .
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd think that's right...problem is, it's not.Understand that before anyone had HEARD "AIG" there were problems.
The Fed made deals with AIG, who, like a lot of people, pays their high-fliers with bonuses at the end of the year, rather than weekly.Imagine that.
Getting paid ONLY once a year.
Once a month is hard enough.
But this kinda of thing is required, due to congressional interferance.
(The kind that makes Conservatives' blood boil, btw).They make a deal with AIG, basically gutting them for profits, putting controls on them, and then recently the media gets ahold of it.
OOH! What a great time to foster hatred of the rich (From whom we get jobs, btw).
The state-run media comes in and calls them names, puffs up the hate, and soon the SEIU, an Obama-buddy union organization, is scheduling bus trips to show people where "the evil money people live" and perhaps throw some rocks.So these people who've been working all year for a single paycheck, give that paycheck back.What about this seems fair to you?
We 'own' them, yeah.
But isn't THAT even the wrong thing to do?Why is money evil?
No one ever demonstrates outside Democratic National Headquarters, George Soros' home, or the homes of dirty congressmen, ALL OF WHICH MAKE LARGE MULTIPLES OF WHAT WE DO.
THEY ARE "RICH" TOO.So what makes them right, and non-supporters of congressmen wrong?AH!
That's it.
[Guys, this is the way people have been played in every nation that's ever been taken down.
Name your dictator.
Stalin demonized the farmers until he had them killed.
Then new people came to be farmers, who knew nothing, and almost everyone starved to death.
Oh! Except for those who supported the government.
WE NEED TO PAY ATTENTION HERE: WE'RE BEING PLAYED.
]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30508186</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>GaryPatterson</author>
	<datestamp>1261320600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I understood that the law did not mandate that banks must make high risk loans, it mandated that they could not discriminate based on location. The person requesting the loan still had to show an ability to pay.</p><p>Just like every other person requesting a loan across the planet - prudent bankers require proof that they'll get their money back.</p><p>If banks interpreted that as being required to make loans to people who can never repay them, then more fool them. They should have gone under.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I understood that the law did not mandate that banks must make high risk loans , it mandated that they could not discriminate based on location .
The person requesting the loan still had to show an ability to pay.Just like every other person requesting a loan across the planet - prudent bankers require proof that they 'll get their money back.If banks interpreted that as being required to make loans to people who can never repay them , then more fool them .
They should have gone under .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understood that the law did not mandate that banks must make high risk loans, it mandated that they could not discriminate based on location.
The person requesting the loan still had to show an ability to pay.Just like every other person requesting a loan across the planet - prudent bankers require proof that they'll get their money back.If banks interpreted that as being required to make loans to people who can never repay them, then more fool them.
They should have gone under.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504048</id>
	<title>not only</title>
	<author>phrostie</author>
	<datestamp>1261326240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not only is it a great idea, it should have been a requirement before the bailout.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not only is it a great idea , it should have been a requirement before the bailout .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not only is it a great idea, it should have been a requirement before the bailout.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30506568</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261303320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>fix the problems</p></div><p>...you mean, like making sure people actually suffer the consequences of their actions when they fuck up?</p><p>I'm sorry, but if bringing to light information on a given company causes people to be so pissed off that they <em>crucify</em> that company, then chances are that company probably deserves to get <em>crucified</em>. If companies get to screw up royally in ways that would piss people off to this degree, but then get  an 'out' offered to them AND they get to escape the aforementioned crucifixion, then what motivation do they have to <em>not</em> repeat those screw-ups?</p><p>Making this information available publicly and thus holding people accountable for their decisions and actions is doing exactly what you are looking for in that:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We need to move forward, fix the problems, and make sure they don't happen again.</p></div><p>And yes, I caught in one of the other comments that destroying this company would eliminate any chances of the so-called "investment" the American people made in AIG ever paying off, but the American people deserve to make that decision for themselves, don't they? If it is indeed the case that bringing this information to light will result in the demise of AIG and that this in turn will result in the American people losing money, then present that information to the American people so that they can make an informed decision. If they still choose to <em>crucify</em> AIG, then it's their own damned fault for doing it.</p><p>We need to stop protecting people from themselves. If you are protected from the consequences of your stupid decisions/actions, chances are that you will keep repeating those stupid actions. If you make a decision that costs you money, then you <em>should</em> lose money as a result of making that decision. Let's paint a little scenario here:</p><p>Say two brothers, Bobby and Timmy, both receive the same weekly allowance from their parents. If Bobby gets tricked out of his allowance by some snake oil salesman, do you think his parents should take half of Timmy's allowance and give it to Bobby so everyone has some money? I think Timmy would be pretty pissed about that. My guess is that the parents will tell Bobby "Son, that was a pretty stupid thing to do. Have you learned your lesson? Good, now don't do it again with the allowance you get next week." If Bobby is a dumbass he might get tricked out of his next week's allowance too. That sucks for Bobby, but Timmy shouldn't suffer for Bobby's bad decisions.</p><p>If you keep making decisions for any group of people in order to protect them from making the "wrong" decision (as decided by yourself), you wear away the ability of that group of people to actually make decisions for themselves because they never get the opportunity to do so! This further promotes the "need" for decisions to be made on behalf of that group because of the decline of their decision making skills and the increased risk of their making the "wrong" decision. You create a giant group of Bobby dumbasses and pissed of Timmy's.</p><p>If people want to burn AIG at the stake based on what they've done, then let them burn. If this results in the people doing the burning losing a shitload of money, then let them learn from their mistakes.</p><p>Life is hard. Sometimes we fuck up. But we can learn from that. And if we don't learn from our fuck-ups, then we will fuck up again, and that is our fate as fuck-ups. This is reality, people. Try as we might, we cannot escape reality, and any attempts to do so are simply a re-shuffling of some of the components of the present reality (in this case debt) or an intentional ignorance and blindness to reality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>fix the problems...you mean , like making sure people actually suffer the consequences of their actions when they fuck up ? I 'm sorry , but if bringing to light information on a given company causes people to be so pissed off that they crucify that company , then chances are that company probably deserves to get crucified .
If companies get to screw up royally in ways that would piss people off to this degree , but then get an 'out ' offered to them AND they get to escape the aforementioned crucifixion , then what motivation do they have to not repeat those screw-ups ? Making this information available publicly and thus holding people accountable for their decisions and actions is doing exactly what you are looking for in that : We need to move forward , fix the problems , and make sure they do n't happen again.And yes , I caught in one of the other comments that destroying this company would eliminate any chances of the so-called " investment " the American people made in AIG ever paying off , but the American people deserve to make that decision for themselves , do n't they ?
If it is indeed the case that bringing this information to light will result in the demise of AIG and that this in turn will result in the American people losing money , then present that information to the American people so that they can make an informed decision .
If they still choose to crucify AIG , then it 's their own damned fault for doing it.We need to stop protecting people from themselves .
If you are protected from the consequences of your stupid decisions/actions , chances are that you will keep repeating those stupid actions .
If you make a decision that costs you money , then you should lose money as a result of making that decision .
Let 's paint a little scenario here : Say two brothers , Bobby and Timmy , both receive the same weekly allowance from their parents .
If Bobby gets tricked out of his allowance by some snake oil salesman , do you think his parents should take half of Timmy 's allowance and give it to Bobby so everyone has some money ?
I think Timmy would be pretty pissed about that .
My guess is that the parents will tell Bobby " Son , that was a pretty stupid thing to do .
Have you learned your lesson ?
Good , now do n't do it again with the allowance you get next week .
" If Bobby is a dumbass he might get tricked out of his next week 's allowance too .
That sucks for Bobby , but Timmy should n't suffer for Bobby 's bad decisions.If you keep making decisions for any group of people in order to protect them from making the " wrong " decision ( as decided by yourself ) , you wear away the ability of that group of people to actually make decisions for themselves because they never get the opportunity to do so !
This further promotes the " need " for decisions to be made on behalf of that group because of the decline of their decision making skills and the increased risk of their making the " wrong " decision .
You create a giant group of Bobby dumbasses and pissed of Timmy 's.If people want to burn AIG at the stake based on what they 've done , then let them burn .
If this results in the people doing the burning losing a shitload of money , then let them learn from their mistakes.Life is hard .
Sometimes we fuck up .
But we can learn from that .
And if we do n't learn from our fuck-ups , then we will fuck up again , and that is our fate as fuck-ups .
This is reality , people .
Try as we might , we can not escape reality , and any attempts to do so are simply a re-shuffling of some of the components of the present reality ( in this case debt ) or an intentional ignorance and blindness to reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fix the problems...you mean, like making sure people actually suffer the consequences of their actions when they fuck up?I'm sorry, but if bringing to light information on a given company causes people to be so pissed off that they crucify that company, then chances are that company probably deserves to get crucified.
If companies get to screw up royally in ways that would piss people off to this degree, but then get  an 'out' offered to them AND they get to escape the aforementioned crucifixion, then what motivation do they have to not repeat those screw-ups?Making this information available publicly and thus holding people accountable for their decisions and actions is doing exactly what you are looking for in that:We need to move forward, fix the problems, and make sure they don't happen again.And yes, I caught in one of the other comments that destroying this company would eliminate any chances of the so-called "investment" the American people made in AIG ever paying off, but the American people deserve to make that decision for themselves, don't they?
If it is indeed the case that bringing this information to light will result in the demise of AIG and that this in turn will result in the American people losing money, then present that information to the American people so that they can make an informed decision.
If they still choose to crucify AIG, then it's their own damned fault for doing it.We need to stop protecting people from themselves.
If you are protected from the consequences of your stupid decisions/actions, chances are that you will keep repeating those stupid actions.
If you make a decision that costs you money, then you should lose money as a result of making that decision.
Let's paint a little scenario here:Say two brothers, Bobby and Timmy, both receive the same weekly allowance from their parents.
If Bobby gets tricked out of his allowance by some snake oil salesman, do you think his parents should take half of Timmy's allowance and give it to Bobby so everyone has some money?
I think Timmy would be pretty pissed about that.
My guess is that the parents will tell Bobby "Son, that was a pretty stupid thing to do.
Have you learned your lesson?
Good, now don't do it again with the allowance you get next week.
" If Bobby is a dumbass he might get tricked out of his next week's allowance too.
That sucks for Bobby, but Timmy shouldn't suffer for Bobby's bad decisions.If you keep making decisions for any group of people in order to protect them from making the "wrong" decision (as decided by yourself), you wear away the ability of that group of people to actually make decisions for themselves because they never get the opportunity to do so!
This further promotes the "need" for decisions to be made on behalf of that group because of the decline of their decision making skills and the increased risk of their making the "wrong" decision.
You create a giant group of Bobby dumbasses and pissed of Timmy's.If people want to burn AIG at the stake based on what they've done, then let them burn.
If this results in the people doing the burning losing a shitload of money, then let them learn from their mistakes.Life is hard.
Sometimes we fuck up.
But we can learn from that.
And if we don't learn from our fuck-ups, then we will fuck up again, and that is our fate as fuck-ups.
This is reality, people.
Try as we might, we cannot escape reality, and any attempts to do so are simply a re-shuffling of some of the components of the present reality (in this case debt) or an intentional ignorance and blindness to reality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503842</id>
	<title>Hrmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261323780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unlike movies, the guys in high places taking home the multimillion dollar salaries 99\% of the time dont get caught. They cover for each other.</p><p>Sad fact of life,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike movies , the guys in high places taking home the multimillion dollar salaries 99 \ % of the time dont get caught .
They cover for each other.Sad fact of life,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike movies, the guys in high places taking home the multimillion dollar salaries 99\% of the time dont get caught.
They cover for each other.Sad fact of life,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30508198</id>
	<title>Seriously, nobody asked...</title>
	<author>Just!nVix</author>
	<datestamp>1261320660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would like to point out (and draw flack for) the obvious:
The promise of the current administration, the huge advertising campeign, the on-the-record touting and sweet nothings about its OWN TRANSPARENCY! Where is it???
<p>
I see NO transparency or open records with our government.
As of this writing and senseless back and forth about some flame-bait stale news-musings, the united states congress is cramming some senseless bill up the people's collective behind, with proven numbers of public opposition. To make things worse, the senate bill is rewritten and will not be available to the public until it is too late to react. I will predict a christmas morning package of a newly transcribed Reid bill.
</p><p>
I do not care what you vote for, and it doesn't matter what I prefer, I am just pissed that the US government, paid for 100\% by our money, can NOT show any transparency, yet, asks others to disclose highly confidential data?
</p><p>
I WOULD like to see AIG laying out a few records, but let us start small, with the inmates that run this asylum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to point out ( and draw flack for ) the obvious : The promise of the current administration , the huge advertising campeign , the on-the-record touting and sweet nothings about its OWN TRANSPARENCY !
Where is it ? ? ?
I see NO transparency or open records with our government .
As of this writing and senseless back and forth about some flame-bait stale news-musings , the united states congress is cramming some senseless bill up the people 's collective behind , with proven numbers of public opposition .
To make things worse , the senate bill is rewritten and will not be available to the public until it is too late to react .
I will predict a christmas morning package of a newly transcribed Reid bill .
I do not care what you vote for , and it does n't matter what I prefer , I am just pissed that the US government , paid for 100 \ % by our money , can NOT show any transparency , yet , asks others to disclose highly confidential data ?
I WOULD like to see AIG laying out a few records , but let us start small , with the inmates that run this asylum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to point out (and draw flack for) the obvious:
The promise of the current administration, the huge advertising campeign, the on-the-record touting and sweet nothings about its OWN TRANSPARENCY!
Where is it???
I see NO transparency or open records with our government.
As of this writing and senseless back and forth about some flame-bait stale news-musings, the united states congress is cramming some senseless bill up the people's collective behind, with proven numbers of public opposition.
To make things worse, the senate bill is rewritten and will not be available to the public until it is too late to react.
I will predict a christmas morning package of a newly transcribed Reid bill.
I do not care what you vote for, and it doesn't matter what I prefer, I am just pissed that the US government, paid for 100\% by our money, can NOT show any transparency, yet, asks others to disclose highly confidential data?
I WOULD like to see AIG laying out a few records, but let us start small, with the inmates that run this asylum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504632</id>
	<title>Re:Yes.</title>
	<author>furball</author>
	<datestamp>1261330920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question then is whether the information we're looking part of the 80\% or is it part of the 20\%? What if they just average it out and only give us 80\% of every meg of data as an example?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question then is whether the information we 're looking part of the 80 \ % or is it part of the 20 \ % ?
What if they just average it out and only give us 80 \ % of every meg of data as an example ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question then is whether the information we're looking part of the 80\% or is it part of the 20\%?
What if they just average it out and only give us 80\% of every meg of data as an example?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504488</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Pinky's Brain</author>
	<datestamp>1261329840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well those probably should be repealed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but to say the banks wouldn't have made those loans otherwise is silly. There was literally no risk in making those loans. Hundreds of subprime lenders were set up in fact just to make those kind of loans without any need for government pressure. The risk was in buying MBS's build on those loans<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but no law mandated anyone to do that, and yet so many did because of misplaced trust in Moody's/etc. The problem is that the market can't recognize (systemic) risk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well those probably should be repealed ... but to say the banks would n't have made those loans otherwise is silly .
There was literally no risk in making those loans .
Hundreds of subprime lenders were set up in fact just to make those kind of loans without any need for government pressure .
The risk was in buying MBS 's build on those loans ... but no law mandated anyone to do that , and yet so many did because of misplaced trust in Moody 's/etc .
The problem is that the market ca n't recognize ( systemic ) risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well those probably should be repealed ... but to say the banks wouldn't have made those loans otherwise is silly.
There was literally no risk in making those loans.
Hundreds of subprime lenders were set up in fact just to make those kind of loans without any need for government pressure.
The risk was in buying MBS's build on those loans ... but no law mandated anyone to do that, and yet so many did because of misplaced trust in Moody's/etc.
The problem is that the market can't recognize (systemic) risk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504136</id>
	<title>Hillary took the bailout money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261327200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Government is a form of corruption.</p><p>Gov. is necessary for city ordinances, infrastructure, and defense.  However, all social programs and bailouts are a form of corruption and government interference.</p><p>Look at Barney Frank...or Hillary taking millions in bailout money</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Government is a form of corruption.Gov .
is necessary for city ordinances , infrastructure , and defense .
However , all social programs and bailouts are a form of corruption and government interference.Look at Barney Frank...or Hillary taking millions in bailout money</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government is a form of corruption.Gov.
is necessary for city ordinances, infrastructure, and defense.
However, all social programs and bailouts are a form of corruption and government interference.Look at Barney Frank...or Hillary taking millions in bailout money</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504086</id>
	<title>This is an insidious suggestion.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261326720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While it is certainly easy to suggest something like this for those evil people at AIG, it presupposes that those good prosecutors and men at law that would protect us from such evil themselves are actually good.  In truth the situation is much more grey than that.  Firstly consider that many prosecutors in the country are elected and the prosecutorial policy is originates in the politics of the various office holders.  Are politicians so indifferent to their own self interest that such a policy as being proposed by the article could be executed in good faith?  Of course not.  Politicians, and those that serve at them, are as notorious as any 'fat cat' in using their position and power to their own benefit at the expense of the others.  All this policy does is feed a sort of populist anger that garners political support for those that suggest it and at the expense of real justice for the small minority that it targets... regardless of their past transgressions.  One should remember that enshrining rights, such as prohibitions against search and seizure without convincing a court, exist largely to protect minorities from majority exploitation.</p><p>The real sin in the AIG case, to be fair, was not any action of AIG at all.  It was that we bought into the bogus notion that a firm can be 'too big too fail' and must be bailout out by Government.  AIG made bad judgments and bad investments and its owners (shareholders, including big investment banks) allowed it to be managed poorly.  The company should have been allowed to fail, something all those involved earned.  What we did instead was reward the foolish risk taking made by the shareholders and the managers and, worse still, told future generations of shareholders and managers that taking these risks is OK... the government will bail you out if you lose so there really is no risk at all... you're too big too fail.  Let em fail! Stop taking my savings, diluting my money, borrowing on my behalf to save businesses that by all rights have earned their failure (including all those that chose to have a business relationship). There are other insurance companies, there are other investment banks, and there are others capable of filling the gap responsibly.  Sure none of them have such good friends as Geithner, Paulson, Obama, &amp; Bush... but they can rise to the occassion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While it is certainly easy to suggest something like this for those evil people at AIG , it presupposes that those good prosecutors and men at law that would protect us from such evil themselves are actually good .
In truth the situation is much more grey than that .
Firstly consider that many prosecutors in the country are elected and the prosecutorial policy is originates in the politics of the various office holders .
Are politicians so indifferent to their own self interest that such a policy as being proposed by the article could be executed in good faith ?
Of course not .
Politicians , and those that serve at them , are as notorious as any 'fat cat ' in using their position and power to their own benefit at the expense of the others .
All this policy does is feed a sort of populist anger that garners political support for those that suggest it and at the expense of real justice for the small minority that it targets... regardless of their past transgressions .
One should remember that enshrining rights , such as prohibitions against search and seizure without convincing a court , exist largely to protect minorities from majority exploitation.The real sin in the AIG case , to be fair , was not any action of AIG at all .
It was that we bought into the bogus notion that a firm can be 'too big too fail ' and must be bailout out by Government .
AIG made bad judgments and bad investments and its owners ( shareholders , including big investment banks ) allowed it to be managed poorly .
The company should have been allowed to fail , something all those involved earned .
What we did instead was reward the foolish risk taking made by the shareholders and the managers and , worse still , told future generations of shareholders and managers that taking these risks is OK... the government will bail you out if you lose so there really is no risk at all... you 're too big too fail .
Let em fail !
Stop taking my savings , diluting my money , borrowing on my behalf to save businesses that by all rights have earned their failure ( including all those that chose to have a business relationship ) .
There are other insurance companies , there are other investment banks , and there are others capable of filling the gap responsibly .
Sure none of them have such good friends as Geithner , Paulson , Obama , &amp; Bush... but they can rise to the occassion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it is certainly easy to suggest something like this for those evil people at AIG, it presupposes that those good prosecutors and men at law that would protect us from such evil themselves are actually good.
In truth the situation is much more grey than that.
Firstly consider that many prosecutors in the country are elected and the prosecutorial policy is originates in the politics of the various office holders.
Are politicians so indifferent to their own self interest that such a policy as being proposed by the article could be executed in good faith?
Of course not.
Politicians, and those that serve at them, are as notorious as any 'fat cat' in using their position and power to their own benefit at the expense of the others.
All this policy does is feed a sort of populist anger that garners political support for those that suggest it and at the expense of real justice for the small minority that it targets... regardless of their past transgressions.
One should remember that enshrining rights, such as prohibitions against search and seizure without convincing a court, exist largely to protect minorities from majority exploitation.The real sin in the AIG case, to be fair, was not any action of AIG at all.
It was that we bought into the bogus notion that a firm can be 'too big too fail' and must be bailout out by Government.
AIG made bad judgments and bad investments and its owners (shareholders, including big investment banks) allowed it to be managed poorly.
The company should have been allowed to fail, something all those involved earned.
What we did instead was reward the foolish risk taking made by the shareholders and the managers and, worse still, told future generations of shareholders and managers that taking these risks is OK... the government will bail you out if you lose so there really is no risk at all... you're too big too fail.
Let em fail!
Stop taking my savings, diluting my money, borrowing on my behalf to save businesses that by all rights have earned their failure (including all those that chose to have a business relationship).
There are other insurance companies, there are other investment banks, and there are others capable of filling the gap responsibly.
Sure none of them have such good friends as Geithner, Paulson, Obama, &amp; Bush... but they can rise to the occassion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30512232</id>
	<title>Re:Yes.</title>
	<author>dalemay</author>
	<datestamp>1261411980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes I believe we as taxpayer should have all the information needed to state our option on this subject.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes I believe we as taxpayer should have all the information needed to state our option on this subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes I believe we as taxpayer should have all the information needed to state our option on this subject.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503832</id>
	<title>Wonderfull Idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261323780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Put PJ in charge!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Put PJ in charge !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Put PJ in charge!
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30512372</id>
	<title>Re:Yes.</title>
	<author>jimbolauski</author>
	<datestamp>1261412880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So everyone who has Freddie and Fannie loans does not have the right to privacy there homes are owned by the government. How about people in government housing? Are medicaid and medicare recipients health care records open to access?  Does this give banks rights to install a camera in my house because they own a majority of my house?  Of course not because it's a loan and the 80\% is collateral on the loan not indicative of ownership if the government owned 80\% of the stock that would be different but they don't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So everyone who has Freddie and Fannie loans does not have the right to privacy there homes are owned by the government .
How about people in government housing ?
Are medicaid and medicare recipients health care records open to access ?
Does this give banks rights to install a camera in my house because they own a majority of my house ?
Of course not because it 's a loan and the 80 \ % is collateral on the loan not indicative of ownership if the government owned 80 \ % of the stock that would be different but they do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So everyone who has Freddie and Fannie loans does not have the right to privacy there homes are owned by the government.
How about people in government housing?
Are medicaid and medicare recipients health care records open to access?
Does this give banks rights to install a camera in my house because they own a majority of my house?
Of course not because it's a loan and the 80\% is collateral on the loan not indicative of ownership if the government owned 80\% of the stock that would be different but they don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504900</id>
	<title>Re:Really Bad Idea</title>
	<author>yourassOA</author>
	<datestamp>1261332840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps you can explain to me why the Viking farmed grapes in Greenland between 800 and 1200 AD? Global warming got them right? I believe that they were frozen out and then quite literally pushed out by a glacier. Maybe you could put that in context for me. But none of the global warning fanatics have ever explained this. Watch none will answer the question just mod me troll. Why? Because the global warming fanatics are the ones doing the cherry picking to try and argue their point and when they fail to argue their point they get all crazy eyed and freak out start pointing and screaming climate denier. Kind of like Chatholics running around in the middle ages screaming heretic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps you can explain to me why the Viking farmed grapes in Greenland between 800 and 1200 AD ?
Global warming got them right ?
I believe that they were frozen out and then quite literally pushed out by a glacier .
Maybe you could put that in context for me .
But none of the global warning fanatics have ever explained this .
Watch none will answer the question just mod me troll .
Why ? Because the global warming fanatics are the ones doing the cherry picking to try and argue their point and when they fail to argue their point they get all crazy eyed and freak out start pointing and screaming climate denier .
Kind of like Chatholics running around in the middle ages screaming heretic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps you can explain to me why the Viking farmed grapes in Greenland between 800 and 1200 AD?
Global warming got them right?
I believe that they were frozen out and then quite literally pushed out by a glacier.
Maybe you could put that in context for me.
But none of the global warning fanatics have ever explained this.
Watch none will answer the question just mod me troll.
Why? Because the global warming fanatics are the ones doing the cherry picking to try and argue their point and when they fail to argue their point they get all crazy eyed and freak out start pointing and screaming climate denier.
Kind of like Chatholics running around in the middle ages screaming heretic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30506296</id>
	<title>Treasures and secrets</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1261300860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This cannot be allowed to happen, since as we all know AIG is both a national treasure *and* a national secret.  Can't give away our secrets to just anybody!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This can not be allowed to happen , since as we all know AIG is both a national treasure * and * a national secret .
Ca n't give away our secrets to just anybody !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This cannot be allowed to happen, since as we all know AIG is both a national treasure *and* a national secret.
Can't give away our secrets to just anybody!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503812</id>
	<title>Rigghttt...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261323540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a good one. Goldman Sachs and Lehman Bros ARE the government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a good one .
Goldman Sachs and Lehman Bros ARE the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a good one.
Goldman Sachs and Lehman Bros ARE the government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504306</id>
	<title>The  bankers are being scapegoated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261328580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All this "Evil Bankers" stuff is getting ridiculous. The banks/bankers are just the scapegoats for a fundamentally corrupt and unsustainable system.</p><p>The magic with blaming the banks/bankers is that we cant get rid of them since we need them. Hence blaming them is the perfect way of maintaining things just the way they were.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All this " Evil Bankers " stuff is getting ridiculous .
The banks/bankers are just the scapegoats for a fundamentally corrupt and unsustainable system.The magic with blaming the banks/bankers is that we cant get rid of them since we need them .
Hence blaming them is the perfect way of maintaining things just the way they were .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this "Evil Bankers" stuff is getting ridiculous.
The banks/bankers are just the scapegoats for a fundamentally corrupt and unsustainable system.The magic with blaming the banks/bankers is that we cant get rid of them since we need them.
Hence blaming them is the perfect way of maintaining things just the way they were.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503934</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1261324980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Better to just split these companies which are too big to fail into smaller chunks</p></div></blockquote><p>

That wouldn't work, the banks are all interconnected through loans and insurance policies, if some start to fail they all fail.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Better to just split these companies which are too big to fail into smaller chunks That would n't work , the banks are all interconnected through loans and insurance policies , if some start to fail they all fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better to just split these companies which are too big to fail into smaller chunks

That wouldn't work, the banks are all interconnected through loans and insurance policies, if some start to fail they all fail.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504042</id>
	<title>It's a start</title>
	<author>mbone</author>
	<datestamp>1261326180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no doubt that there is a lot of dirty stuff in those emails, so releasing them would be good.</p><p>Since clearly not everything could be released (HIPPA stuff, personal bank account numbers, etc.), this raises the question of who would remove the private information, and whether they could be trusted. Clearly, if this was done by AIG, an amazing amount of stuff would presumably be declared personal and private and not for release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no doubt that there is a lot of dirty stuff in those emails , so releasing them would be good.Since clearly not everything could be released ( HIPPA stuff , personal bank account numbers , etc .
) , this raises the question of who would remove the private information , and whether they could be trusted .
Clearly , if this was done by AIG , an amazing amount of stuff would presumably be declared personal and private and not for release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no doubt that there is a lot of dirty stuff in those emails, so releasing them would be good.Since clearly not everything could be released (HIPPA stuff, personal bank account numbers, etc.
), this raises the question of who would remove the private information, and whether they could be trusted.
Clearly, if this was done by AIG, an amazing amount of stuff would presumably be declared personal and private and not for release.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504402</id>
	<title>Great Idea!</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1261329240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will distract the quote miners away from ClimateGate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It will distract the quote miners away from ClimateGate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will distract the quote miners away from ClimateGate.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30505232</id>
	<title>Re:Yes.</title>
	<author>Ramze</author>
	<datestamp>1261335360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless you live in a mobile home where the mortgage company owns the title to your home until you complete the terms of your contract, your mortgage company does not own any part of your home.  Your home is merely collateral which can be seized to repay any portion of the amount of your contract you are unable or unwilling to pay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you live in a mobile home where the mortgage company owns the title to your home until you complete the terms of your contract , your mortgage company does not own any part of your home .
Your home is merely collateral which can be seized to repay any portion of the amount of your contract you are unable or unwilling to pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you live in a mobile home where the mortgage company owns the title to your home until you complete the terms of your contract, your mortgage company does not own any part of your home.
Your home is merely collateral which can be seized to repay any portion of the amount of your contract you are unable or unwilling to pay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503888</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>arcticinfantry</author>
	<datestamp>1261324380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah,  nice idea, but you'd need a legion of Paul Bunyan's to do that.  Obama would probably chop his foot off on the first swing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , nice idea , but you 'd need a legion of Paul Bunyan 's to do that .
Obama would probably chop his foot off on the first swing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah,  nice idea, but you'd need a legion of Paul Bunyan's to do that.
Obama would probably chop his foot off on the first swing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30507854</id>
	<title>Re:Rigghttt...</title>
	<author>dov\_0</author>
	<datestamp>1261316040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well I've always found it amusing when Americans talk about democracy...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I 've always found it amusing when Americans talk about democracy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I've always found it amusing when Americans talk about democracy...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503864</id>
	<title>The Risk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261324020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As purported owners of 80\% of AIG, shouldn't taxpayers also be concerned that the information released could compromise the viability of their investment necessary to regain their lost billions?</p><p>I'd love to know what happened but I also want the money they took from me plus an onerous amount of interest. I think the interest will discourage them (and anyone who looks up to their executives as examples of how to rape taxpayers) from repeating their greed/mistakes. Of course what they really deserved was to sink like the anchors they were... Seriously, if you divide the TARP bailout money it comes out to $20,000 per US citizen. My savings and investments can't cover that level of corporate charity disguised as taxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As purported owners of 80 \ % of AIG , should n't taxpayers also be concerned that the information released could compromise the viability of their investment necessary to regain their lost billions ? I 'd love to know what happened but I also want the money they took from me plus an onerous amount of interest .
I think the interest will discourage them ( and anyone who looks up to their executives as examples of how to rape taxpayers ) from repeating their greed/mistakes .
Of course what they really deserved was to sink like the anchors they were... Seriously , if you divide the TARP bailout money it comes out to $ 20,000 per US citizen .
My savings and investments ca n't cover that level of corporate charity disguised as taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As purported owners of 80\% of AIG, shouldn't taxpayers also be concerned that the information released could compromise the viability of their investment necessary to regain their lost billions?I'd love to know what happened but I also want the money they took from me plus an onerous amount of interest.
I think the interest will discourage them (and anyone who looks up to their executives as examples of how to rape taxpayers) from repeating their greed/mistakes.
Of course what they really deserved was to sink like the anchors they were... Seriously, if you divide the TARP bailout money it comes out to $20,000 per US citizen.
My savings and investments can't cover that level of corporate charity disguised as taxes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504618</id>
	<title>Citation needed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261330800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So having all those emails will cause journalistic investigation?  The Climategate emails don't seem to have caused journalistic investigation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So having all those emails will cause journalistic investigation ?
The Climategate emails do n't seem to have caused journalistic investigation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So having all those emails will cause journalistic investigation?
The Climategate emails don't seem to have caused journalistic investigation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503840</id>
	<title>Superheroes</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1261323780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most comic book superheroes are vigilantes. They work outside the law to bring evildoers to justice. When drawn like Adonii and Venii, with skin-tight spandex costumes and long flowing capes, their actions are well understood to be for the common good.</p><p>Contrast this with vigilantes in real life. When people act outside the law to bring down "evildoers" we call them <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy\_McVeigh" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">terrorists</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley\_Shannon" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">murderers</a> [wikipedia.org], and <a href="http://pixar.wikia.com/Carl\_Fredricksen" title="wikia.com" rel="nofollow">Menaces to society</a> [wikia.com]. We simply can't tolerate vigilantism in a civilized society. Justice must operate within the confines of the law, and that implies that the accused must have some level of privacy.</p><p>To open the case up to the general public means forcing any shred of privacy of every employee of AIG out into the open. It also means that anyone with an agenda can use the material to find ways to destroy those employees. It encourages vigilantism and erodes the rights of everyone for no good reason.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most comic book superheroes are vigilantes .
They work outside the law to bring evildoers to justice .
When drawn like Adonii and Venii , with skin-tight spandex costumes and long flowing capes , their actions are well understood to be for the common good.Contrast this with vigilantes in real life .
When people act outside the law to bring down " evildoers " we call them terrorists [ wikipedia.org ] , murderers [ wikipedia.org ] , and Menaces to society [ wikia.com ] .
We simply ca n't tolerate vigilantism in a civilized society .
Justice must operate within the confines of the law , and that implies that the accused must have some level of privacy.To open the case up to the general public means forcing any shred of privacy of every employee of AIG out into the open .
It also means that anyone with an agenda can use the material to find ways to destroy those employees .
It encourages vigilantism and erodes the rights of everyone for no good reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most comic book superheroes are vigilantes.
They work outside the law to bring evildoers to justice.
When drawn like Adonii and Venii, with skin-tight spandex costumes and long flowing capes, their actions are well understood to be for the common good.Contrast this with vigilantes in real life.
When people act outside the law to bring down "evildoers" we call them terrorists [wikipedia.org], murderers [wikipedia.org], and Menaces to society [wikia.com].
We simply can't tolerate vigilantism in a civilized society.
Justice must operate within the confines of the law, and that implies that the accused must have some level of privacy.To open the case up to the general public means forcing any shred of privacy of every employee of AIG out into the open.
It also means that anyone with an agenda can use the material to find ways to destroy those employees.
It encourages vigilantism and erodes the rights of everyone for no good reason.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30507966</id>
	<title>Re:Yes?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1261317480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Making money is not evil. Making money at the expense of a non-consenting individual is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Making money is not evil .
Making money at the expense of a non-consenting individual is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making money is not evil.
Making money at the expense of a non-consenting individual is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30507554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503854</id>
	<title>Only part of the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261323960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bear Sterns was deliberately crashed as part of a scheme to cover up the JP Morgan and Chase insolvency.</p><p>Audit the Fed!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bear Sterns was deliberately crashed as part of a scheme to cover up the JP Morgan and Chase insolvency.Audit the Fed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bear Sterns was deliberately crashed as part of a scheme to cover up the JP Morgan and Chase insolvency.Audit the Fed!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504084</id>
	<title>Great success!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261326720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all the fanfare and comradery inspired by P.J. of Groklaw fame, we need to ask whether this is a good idea? It's an EXCELLENT idea. Many eyeballs make a heap of problems very shallow, to coin a phrase from Richard Stallman's work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all the fanfare and comradery inspired by P.J .
of Groklaw fame , we need to ask whether this is a good idea ?
It 's an EXCELLENT idea .
Many eyeballs make a heap of problems very shallow , to coin a phrase from Richard Stallman 's work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all the fanfare and comradery inspired by P.J.
of Groklaw fame, we need to ask whether this is a good idea?
It's an EXCELLENT idea.
Many eyeballs make a heap of problems very shallow, to coin a phrase from Richard Stallman's work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503830</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261323720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, not a good idea. What is the point in having a Cultural Revolution? Better to just split these companies which are too big to fail into smaller chunks, kick out the top management making sure they never work in that capacity anymore, enforce layers of separation between businesses and let them free. Restore the Glass&ndash;Steagall Act and separate commercial banking from investment banking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , not a good idea .
What is the point in having a Cultural Revolution ?
Better to just split these companies which are too big to fail into smaller chunks , kick out the top management making sure they never work in that capacity anymore , enforce layers of separation between businesses and let them free .
Restore the Glass    Steagall Act and separate commercial banking from investment banking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, not a good idea.
What is the point in having a Cultural Revolution?
Better to just split these companies which are too big to fail into smaller chunks, kick out the top management making sure they never work in that capacity anymore, enforce layers of separation between businesses and let them free.
Restore the Glass–Steagall Act and separate commercial banking from investment banking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30505064</id>
	<title>Not news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261334220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, so apparently the words "open source" means<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. has to post it. Client #9 is just running for reelection so he writes an editorial making a ridiculous suggestion.  As if somehow the federal government would make the email logs of a publicly traded company available in mass, it's just a populist appeal. If Spitzer wanted to do something he would have kept his job as DA or Governor and gotten a warrant for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , so apparently the words " open source " means / .
has to post it .
Client # 9 is just running for reelection so he writes an editorial making a ridiculous suggestion .
As if somehow the federal government would make the email logs of a publicly traded company available in mass , it 's just a populist appeal .
If Spitzer wanted to do something he would have kept his job as DA or Governor and gotten a warrant for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, so apparently the words "open source" means /.
has to post it.
Client #9 is just running for reelection so he writes an editorial making a ridiculous suggestion.
As if somehow the federal government would make the email logs of a publicly traded company available in mass, it's just a populist appeal.
If Spitzer wanted to do something he would have kept his job as DA or Governor and gotten a warrant for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503956</id>
	<title>Wasn't this technique used already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261325160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>during this year's big UK politicians expenses scandal? All citizens could look over the lists of expenses and find the abuses.

I'm not from the UK, so I don't know how this story ended, perhaps somebody from the UK could fill me in?</htmltext>
<tokenext>during this year 's big UK politicians expenses scandal ?
All citizens could look over the lists of expenses and find the abuses .
I 'm not from the UK , so I do n't know how this story ended , perhaps somebody from the UK could fill me in ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>during this year's big UK politicians expenses scandal?
All citizens could look over the lists of expenses and find the abuses.
I'm not from the UK, so I don't know how this story ended, perhaps somebody from the UK could fill me in?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504756</id>
	<title>Re:Keep Dreaming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261331880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on did you get the full story from the Nixon administration? No. Dream on you cretins!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on did you get the full story from the Nixon administration ?
No. Dream on you cretins !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on did you get the full story from the Nixon administration?
No. Dream on you cretins!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504186</id>
	<title>Re:The Risk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261327740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TARP was $700 billion; there are about 300 million US citizens. That works out to $2,333 per person. A large sum, to be sure, but you were off by an order of magnitude. Whether or not you agree with the ideology behind TARP it isn't hard to believe that the overall cost per US citizen could have been far greater than $2,333 if the financial markets were allowed to melt down completely. I don't think anyone really wanted TARP - but it was too late to do anything else by the time the meltdown happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TARP was $ 700 billion ; there are about 300 million US citizens .
That works out to $ 2,333 per person .
A large sum , to be sure , but you were off by an order of magnitude .
Whether or not you agree with the ideology behind TARP it is n't hard to believe that the overall cost per US citizen could have been far greater than $ 2,333 if the financial markets were allowed to melt down completely .
I do n't think anyone really wanted TARP - but it was too late to do anything else by the time the meltdown happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TARP was $700 billion; there are about 300 million US citizens.
That works out to $2,333 per person.
A large sum, to be sure, but you were off by an order of magnitude.
Whether or not you agree with the ideology behind TARP it isn't hard to believe that the overall cost per US citizen could have been far greater than $2,333 if the financial markets were allowed to melt down completely.
I don't think anyone really wanted TARP - but it was too late to do anything else by the time the meltdown happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30505176</id>
	<title>Re:Not quite</title>
	<author>Ramze</author>
	<datestamp>1261334940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nope... you and whomever modded this as +5 informative needs a course in business law.   Owning 51\% or more in a company gives you complete and unquestionable authority over what actions a company can take unless a signed contract says otherwise or your shares are specifically "non-voting" stock.  If the Fed. govt. as 80\% owner decided to release all documents or even liquidate the company, the owners of the other 20\% would have no say at all and no legal recourse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope... you and whomever modded this as + 5 informative needs a course in business law .
Owning 51 \ % or more in a company gives you complete and unquestionable authority over what actions a company can take unless a signed contract says otherwise or your shares are specifically " non-voting " stock .
If the Fed .
govt. as 80 \ % owner decided to release all documents or even liquidate the company , the owners of the other 20 \ % would have no say at all and no legal recourse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope... you and whomever modded this as +5 informative needs a course in business law.
Owning 51\% or more in a company gives you complete and unquestionable authority over what actions a company can take unless a signed contract says otherwise or your shares are specifically "non-voting" stock.
If the Fed.
govt. as 80\% owner decided to release all documents or even liquidate the company, the owners of the other 20\% would have no say at all and no legal recourse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30505660</id>
	<title>Maybe a great idea; but maybe not practical</title>
	<author>gordguide</author>
	<datestamp>1261339200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the surface this sounds like a great "power to the people" type democratic initiative. Certainly there is much good in public disclosure.</p><p>Where I see issues is in exactly how it's implemented. Broadly speaking, not every citizen, when given the chance to comment, takes that opportunity to make an actionable comment. In fact the majority of comments on newspaper stories, forums, or government communication channels, when they're allowed and implemented in a web-enabled method, tend to be of the angry, snide, or generally unhelpful kind.</p><p>The problem then becomes you have to get people to read these things for it to be of any actual value. Slashdot, for all the (often justified) complaints by users that there is a lot of chaff per grain of wheat, is amongst the better examples when it comes to useful posts. Newspaper story comments, at least the ones I read online, tend to be more-or-less useless venting or political grandstanding and sniping, or broad challenges to the competency of this organization or that one. Even when valid, they are not actually helpful in solving whatever issue may be at stake.</p><p>Even when there are professionals involved, an open submission policy may result in the sheer number of comments and objections tending to bog down any useful work. I'm reminded of the WiFi implementation saga; the very companies with a stake in the outcome and the IEEE which was just trying to get a standard set, were plagued by verbose and often redundant comments that had to be waded through and followed up on, making the typical Government Committee seem, remarkably, swift and efficient by comparison.</p><p>With the right limits, it might work. But, care would have to be taken so that a certain number of hoops had to be jumped through to discourage flippant public input. This (rightly so) is frowned upon by democracy advocates; it's a form of elitism and there is always the danger that people with valuable input may be suspicious of leaving identifying information associated with their input.</p><p>Even then, it would definitely add a time penalty to any useful resolution; if none of the public input was valuable, and especially if it were.</p><p>I don't see how you could simply release information and not allow people to give a response to that information. I think it's an issue that has yet to be addressed satisfactorily in the modern connected world we live in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the surface this sounds like a great " power to the people " type democratic initiative .
Certainly there is much good in public disclosure.Where I see issues is in exactly how it 's implemented .
Broadly speaking , not every citizen , when given the chance to comment , takes that opportunity to make an actionable comment .
In fact the majority of comments on newspaper stories , forums , or government communication channels , when they 're allowed and implemented in a web-enabled method , tend to be of the angry , snide , or generally unhelpful kind.The problem then becomes you have to get people to read these things for it to be of any actual value .
Slashdot , for all the ( often justified ) complaints by users that there is a lot of chaff per grain of wheat , is amongst the better examples when it comes to useful posts .
Newspaper story comments , at least the ones I read online , tend to be more-or-less useless venting or political grandstanding and sniping , or broad challenges to the competency of this organization or that one .
Even when valid , they are not actually helpful in solving whatever issue may be at stake.Even when there are professionals involved , an open submission policy may result in the sheer number of comments and objections tending to bog down any useful work .
I 'm reminded of the WiFi implementation saga ; the very companies with a stake in the outcome and the IEEE which was just trying to get a standard set , were plagued by verbose and often redundant comments that had to be waded through and followed up on , making the typical Government Committee seem , remarkably , swift and efficient by comparison.With the right limits , it might work .
But , care would have to be taken so that a certain number of hoops had to be jumped through to discourage flippant public input .
This ( rightly so ) is frowned upon by democracy advocates ; it 's a form of elitism and there is always the danger that people with valuable input may be suspicious of leaving identifying information associated with their input.Even then , it would definitely add a time penalty to any useful resolution ; if none of the public input was valuable , and especially if it were.I do n't see how you could simply release information and not allow people to give a response to that information .
I think it 's an issue that has yet to be addressed satisfactorily in the modern connected world we live in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the surface this sounds like a great "power to the people" type democratic initiative.
Certainly there is much good in public disclosure.Where I see issues is in exactly how it's implemented.
Broadly speaking, not every citizen, when given the chance to comment, takes that opportunity to make an actionable comment.
In fact the majority of comments on newspaper stories, forums, or government communication channels, when they're allowed and implemented in a web-enabled method, tend to be of the angry, snide, or generally unhelpful kind.The problem then becomes you have to get people to read these things for it to be of any actual value.
Slashdot, for all the (often justified) complaints by users that there is a lot of chaff per grain of wheat, is amongst the better examples when it comes to useful posts.
Newspaper story comments, at least the ones I read online, tend to be more-or-less useless venting or political grandstanding and sniping, or broad challenges to the competency of this organization or that one.
Even when valid, they are not actually helpful in solving whatever issue may be at stake.Even when there are professionals involved, an open submission policy may result in the sheer number of comments and objections tending to bog down any useful work.
I'm reminded of the WiFi implementation saga; the very companies with a stake in the outcome and the IEEE which was just trying to get a standard set, were plagued by verbose and often redundant comments that had to be waded through and followed up on, making the typical Government Committee seem, remarkably, swift and efficient by comparison.With the right limits, it might work.
But, care would have to be taken so that a certain number of hoops had to be jumped through to discourage flippant public input.
This (rightly so) is frowned upon by democracy advocates; it's a form of elitism and there is always the danger that people with valuable input may be suspicious of leaving identifying information associated with their input.Even then, it would definitely add a time penalty to any useful resolution; if none of the public input was valuable, and especially if it were.I don't see how you could simply release information and not allow people to give a response to that information.
I think it's an issue that has yet to be addressed satisfactorily in the modern connected world we live in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503936</id>
	<title>Re:Hrmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261324980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which is why every single CEO or manager at AIG or any other "financial institution" should be dragged into the streets and shot in the head twice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is why every single CEO or manager at AIG or any other " financial institution " should be dragged into the streets and shot in the head twice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is why every single CEO or manager at AIG or any other "financial institution" should be dragged into the streets and shot in the head twice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504106</id>
	<title>awsome idea</title>
	<author>schleprock63</author>
	<datestamp>1261326900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>under the sunshine act, one would think they have no choice but must, by law, open their e-mails and any other correspondence to the public. we paid for for them, then we should have full access. and the excuse that this would make them less competitive is total BS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>under the sunshine act , one would think they have no choice but must , by law , open their e-mails and any other correspondence to the public .
we paid for for them , then we should have full access .
and the excuse that this would make them less competitive is total BS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>under the sunshine act, one would think they have no choice but must, by law, open their e-mails and any other correspondence to the public.
we paid for for them, then we should have full access.
and the excuse that this would make them less competitive is total BS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503998</id>
	<title>what would this accomplish?</title>
	<author>wakim1618</author>
	<datestamp>1261325640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Making public the emails of any large organization (e.g. US Dept of Transportation, Sierra Club, Red Cross/Red Cresent, Google) will mostly be fodder for the trolls and pundits. Any large organization will have some (stupid) individual employees or contractors who expresses racially or sexually offensive views, or make threats or talk smack.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Making public the emails of any large organization ( e.g .
US Dept of Transportation , Sierra Club , Red Cross/Red Cresent , Google ) will mostly be fodder for the trolls and pundits .
Any large organization will have some ( stupid ) individual employees or contractors who expresses racially or sexually offensive views , or make threats or talk smack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Making public the emails of any large organization (e.g.
US Dept of Transportation, Sierra Club, Red Cross/Red Cresent, Google) will mostly be fodder for the trolls and pundits.
Any large organization will have some (stupid) individual employees or contractors who expresses racially or sexually offensive views, or make threats or talk smack.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503876</id>
	<title>If gov funded research has to be published why not</title>
	<author>Dr\_Ken</author>
	<datestamp>1261324200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>this stuff too? Who pays the piper calls the tune. I have to sign away exclusive publishing rights to any work I do with gov funding (no matter how peripheral or limited) if I accept it. AIG should get no waiver on that score either imho.</htmltext>
<tokenext>this stuff too ?
Who pays the piper calls the tune .
I have to sign away exclusive publishing rights to any work I do with gov funding ( no matter how peripheral or limited ) if I accept it .
AIG should get no waiver on that score either imho .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this stuff too?
Who pays the piper calls the tune.
I have to sign away exclusive publishing rights to any work I do with gov funding (no matter how peripheral or limited) if I accept it.
AIG should get no waiver on that score either imho.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30505210</id>
	<title>Re:Keep Dreaming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261335240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GS had no material exposure to AIG:<br><a href="http://www2.goldmansachs.com/our-firm/press/viewpoint/viewpoint-articles/aig-summary.html" title="goldmansachs.com" rel="nofollow">http://www2.goldmansachs.com/our-firm/press/viewpoint/viewpoint-articles/aig-summary.html</a> [goldmansachs.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GS had no material exposure to AIG : http : //www2.goldmansachs.com/our-firm/press/viewpoint/viewpoint-articles/aig-summary.html [ goldmansachs.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GS had no material exposure to AIG:http://www2.goldmansachs.com/our-firm/press/viewpoint/viewpoint-articles/aig-summary.html [goldmansachs.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504410</id>
	<title>Coc(k</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261329300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>reasons why anyonE 800 mhz machine</htmltext>
<tokenext>reasons why anyonE 800 mhz machine</tokentext>
<sentencetext>reasons why anyonE 800 mhz machine</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504546</id>
	<title>Be careful what you wish for....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261330260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * May you live in interesting times</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * May you come to the attention of those in authority</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * May you find what you are looking for</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
      * May you live in interesting times       * May you come to the attention of those in authority       * May you find what you are looking for</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
      * May you live in interesting times
      * May you come to the attention of those in authority
      * May you find what you are looking for</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504236</id>
	<title>only too true</title>
	<author>gadget junkie</author>
	<datestamp>1261328160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, not a good idea. What is the point in having a Cultural Revolution? Better to just split these companies which are too big to fail into smaller chunks, kick out the top management making sure they never work in that capacity anymore, enforce layers of separation between businesses and let them free. Restore the Glass&ndash;Steagall Act and separate commercial banking from investment banking.</p></div><p>That fits with my idea that the standard politician idea of <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6284fdba-e4c3-11de-96a2-00144feab49a.html?nclick\_check=1" title="ft.com">going after bankers' salaries and bonuses</a> [ft.com] is moronic. The crux of the problem is how fat the BANKS get, not how they pay bigwigs. <br> <br> One more comment: all governments seem bent on getting aid  money back from the banking system ASAP, and the Herds are mooing that that's a good thing; but  if you consider that the regulations of the banking system is more or less what it was when Lehman went under, central bankers included, I see it more as a "blank check " for keeping regulation lax ( or stupid, witness <a href="http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbsca.htm" title="bis.org"> Basel II</a> [bis.org] ); It would be very difficult for governments to press for reenacting the Glass- Steagall act, which would permanently erase excess profits at realities like Goldman Sachs, all the while asking the same companies to make those excess profits in order to repay the Government.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , not a good idea .
What is the point in having a Cultural Revolution ?
Better to just split these companies which are too big to fail into smaller chunks , kick out the top management making sure they never work in that capacity anymore , enforce layers of separation between businesses and let them free .
Restore the Glass    Steagall Act and separate commercial banking from investment banking.That fits with my idea that the standard politician idea of going after bankers ' salaries and bonuses [ ft.com ] is moronic .
The crux of the problem is how fat the BANKS get , not how they pay bigwigs .
One more comment : all governments seem bent on getting aid money back from the banking system ASAP , and the Herds are mooing that that 's a good thing ; but if you consider that the regulations of the banking system is more or less what it was when Lehman went under , central bankers included , I see it more as a " blank check " for keeping regulation lax ( or stupid , witness Basel II [ bis.org ] ) ; It would be very difficult for governments to press for reenacting the Glass- Steagall act , which would permanently erase excess profits at realities like Goldman Sachs , all the while asking the same companies to make those excess profits in order to repay the Government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, not a good idea.
What is the point in having a Cultural Revolution?
Better to just split these companies which are too big to fail into smaller chunks, kick out the top management making sure they never work in that capacity anymore, enforce layers of separation between businesses and let them free.
Restore the Glass–Steagall Act and separate commercial banking from investment banking.That fits with my idea that the standard politician idea of going after bankers' salaries and bonuses [ft.com] is moronic.
The crux of the problem is how fat the BANKS get, not how they pay bigwigs.
One more comment: all governments seem bent on getting aid  money back from the banking system ASAP, and the Herds are mooing that that's a good thing; but  if you consider that the regulations of the banking system is more or less what it was when Lehman went under, central bankers included, I see it more as a "blank check " for keeping regulation lax ( or stupid, witness  Basel II [bis.org] ); It would be very difficult for governments to press for reenacting the Glass- Steagall act, which would permanently erase excess profits at realities like Goldman Sachs, all the while asking the same companies to make those excess profits in order to repay the Government.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30560892</id>
	<title>tag: mob rule</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261851300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mobrule</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mobrule</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mobrule</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503988</id>
	<title>Open source "investigation"</title>
	<author>The\_Duck271</author>
	<datestamp>1261325520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean, like the open source "investigation" of the leaked climate change research group emails? That turned out well...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean , like the open source " investigation " of the leaked climate change research group emails ?
That turned out well.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean, like the open source "investigation" of the leaked climate change research group emails?
That turned out well...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30514314</id>
	<title>Re:Yes?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261421460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Understand that before anyone had HEARD "AIG" there were problems. The Fed made deals with AIG, who, like a lot of people, pays their high-fliers with bonuses at the end of the year, rather than weekly.</p><p>Imagine that. Getting paid ONLY once a year. Once a month is hard enough. But this kinda of thing is required, due to congressional interferance. (The kind that makes Conservatives' blood boil, btw).</p></div><p>That <strong>would</strong> suck, if it were in any way how things worked.  Even if your claim were true (that they only got paid once a year), the bonuses they were receiving were <strong>absurdly</strong> large (much larger than 95\% of the population makes in a year).</p><p>Being that it isn't true, however, these are <strong>bonuses</strong> that they earn on top of their existing salary (which they tended to place at actually moderate levels, as I recall, so that they didn't look like they were screwing us out of so much money when their salaries were reported to various governing bodies), so they had plenty of money each month to get by.</p><p>Stop being a nutter, seriously.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Understand that before anyone had HEARD " AIG " there were problems .
The Fed made deals with AIG , who , like a lot of people , pays their high-fliers with bonuses at the end of the year , rather than weekly.Imagine that .
Getting paid ONLY once a year .
Once a month is hard enough .
But this kinda of thing is required , due to congressional interferance .
( The kind that makes Conservatives ' blood boil , btw ) .That would suck , if it were in any way how things worked .
Even if your claim were true ( that they only got paid once a year ) , the bonuses they were receiving were absurdly large ( much larger than 95 \ % of the population makes in a year ) .Being that it is n't true , however , these are bonuses that they earn on top of their existing salary ( which they tended to place at actually moderate levels , as I recall , so that they did n't look like they were screwing us out of so much money when their salaries were reported to various governing bodies ) , so they had plenty of money each month to get by.Stop being a nutter , seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Understand that before anyone had HEARD "AIG" there were problems.
The Fed made deals with AIG, who, like a lot of people, pays their high-fliers with bonuses at the end of the year, rather than weekly.Imagine that.
Getting paid ONLY once a year.
Once a month is hard enough.
But this kinda of thing is required, due to congressional interferance.
(The kind that makes Conservatives' blood boil, btw).That would suck, if it were in any way how things worked.
Even if your claim were true (that they only got paid once a year), the bonuses they were receiving were absurdly large (much larger than 95\% of the population makes in a year).Being that it isn't true, however, these are bonuses that they earn on top of their existing salary (which they tended to place at actually moderate levels, as I recall, so that they didn't look like they were screwing us out of so much money when their salaries were reported to various governing bodies), so they had plenty of money each month to get by.Stop being a nutter, seriously.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30507554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30506248</id>
	<title>Re:The Risk</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1261300440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where can I donate my part? Seriously, as a citizen, I want to see AIG die.  And I am not the only one who thinks so, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704825504574586330960597134.html" title="wsj.com">Paul Volcker agrees with me</a> [wsj.com].  It's a good article, you should read it.  He suggests dividing commercial banks from companies doing more exotic investment activities, and to them he says<p><div class="quote"><p>If you fail, you're going to fail, and I am not going to help you, and your stockholders are going to be gone, and your creditors will be at risk, and that is the way that it should be.......We need a resolution facility. What can that resolution facility do? If one of you fails and has systemic risk, then it steps in, takes you over and either liquidates or merges you, but it does not save you.</p></div><p>As for the more exotic investment activities, he has this to say:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> I found myself sitting next to one of the inventors of financial engineering. I didn't know him, but I knew who he was and that he had won a Nobel Prize, and I nudged him and asked what all the financial engineering does for the economy and what it does for productivity.<br> <br>

Much to my surprise, he leaned over and whispered in my ear that it does nothing--and this was from a leader in the world of financial engineering. I asked him what it did do, and he said that it moves around the rents in the financial system--and besides, it's a lot of intellectual fun.</p></div><p>Good stuff. I wish Geithner and Obama would listen. By the way, your numbers are wrong, TARP was closer to $2,000 per citizen.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where can I donate my part ?
Seriously , as a citizen , I want to see AIG die .
And I am not the only one who thinks so , Paul Volcker agrees with me [ wsj.com ] .
It 's a good article , you should read it .
He suggests dividing commercial banks from companies doing more exotic investment activities , and to them he saysIf you fail , you 're going to fail , and I am not going to help you , and your stockholders are going to be gone , and your creditors will be at risk , and that is the way that it should be.......We need a resolution facility .
What can that resolution facility do ?
If one of you fails and has systemic risk , then it steps in , takes you over and either liquidates or merges you , but it does not save you.As for the more exotic investment activities , he has this to say : I found myself sitting next to one of the inventors of financial engineering .
I did n't know him , but I knew who he was and that he had won a Nobel Prize , and I nudged him and asked what all the financial engineering does for the economy and what it does for productivity .
Much to my surprise , he leaned over and whispered in my ear that it does nothing--and this was from a leader in the world of financial engineering .
I asked him what it did do , and he said that it moves around the rents in the financial system--and besides , it 's a lot of intellectual fun.Good stuff .
I wish Geithner and Obama would listen .
By the way , your numbers are wrong , TARP was closer to $ 2,000 per citizen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where can I donate my part?
Seriously, as a citizen, I want to see AIG die.
And I am not the only one who thinks so, Paul Volcker agrees with me [wsj.com].
It's a good article, you should read it.
He suggests dividing commercial banks from companies doing more exotic investment activities, and to them he saysIf you fail, you're going to fail, and I am not going to help you, and your stockholders are going to be gone, and your creditors will be at risk, and that is the way that it should be.......We need a resolution facility.
What can that resolution facility do?
If one of you fails and has systemic risk, then it steps in, takes you over and either liquidates or merges you, but it does not save you.As for the more exotic investment activities, he has this to say: I found myself sitting next to one of the inventors of financial engineering.
I didn't know him, but I knew who he was and that he had won a Nobel Prize, and I nudged him and asked what all the financial engineering does for the economy and what it does for productivity.
Much to my surprise, he leaned over and whispered in my ear that it does nothing--and this was from a leader in the world of financial engineering.
I asked him what it did do, and he said that it moves around the rents in the financial system--and besides, it's a lot of intellectual fun.Good stuff.
I wish Geithner and Obama would listen.
By the way, your numbers are wrong, TARP was closer to $2,000 per citizen.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30574632</id>
	<title>Re:only too true</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1262032560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That fits with my idea that the standard politician idea of going after bankers' salaries and bonuses is moronic.</i></p><p><i>Not</i> going after banker's salaries and bonuses is moronic.  If these guys can reward themselves with enormous compensation by taking enormous risks...they will take enormous risks.  Breaking up the banks will stop them from blowing up the entire world economy, but not putting limits on their compensation means will will still have plenty of blow ups - they'll just be smaller ones that take out investors and depositors (that other banks and taxpayers will have to eat through FDIC).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That fits with my idea that the standard politician idea of going after bankers ' salaries and bonuses is moronic.Not going after banker 's salaries and bonuses is moronic .
If these guys can reward themselves with enormous compensation by taking enormous risks...they will take enormous risks .
Breaking up the banks will stop them from blowing up the entire world economy , but not putting limits on their compensation means will will still have plenty of blow ups - they 'll just be smaller ones that take out investors and depositors ( that other banks and taxpayers will have to eat through FDIC ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That fits with my idea that the standard politician idea of going after bankers' salaries and bonuses is moronic.Not going after banker's salaries and bonuses is moronic.
If these guys can reward themselves with enormous compensation by taking enormous risks...they will take enormous risks.
Breaking up the banks will stop them from blowing up the entire world economy, but not putting limits on their compensation means will will still have plenty of blow ups - they'll just be smaller ones that take out investors and depositors (that other banks and taxpayers will have to eat through FDIC).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504194</id>
	<title>Re:Yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261327800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My mortgage company owns 80\% of my house but I don't want them coming in whenever they feel like it. Yes, shareholders should know some things such as pay, retirements, investments and investigations. If you opened up everything and every secret you are just giving an advantage to your competitors, who don't have to disclose certain details of their business.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My mortgage company owns 80 \ % of my house but I do n't want them coming in whenever they feel like it .
Yes , shareholders should know some things such as pay , retirements , investments and investigations .
If you opened up everything and every secret you are just giving an advantage to your competitors , who do n't have to disclose certain details of their business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My mortgage company owns 80\% of my house but I don't want them coming in whenever they feel like it.
Yes, shareholders should know some things such as pay, retirements, investments and investigations.
If you opened up everything and every secret you are just giving an advantage to your competitors, who don't have to disclose certain details of their business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503954</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Cyner</author>
	<datestamp>1261325160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, the public is just going to crucify the company. We need to move forward, fix the problems, and make sure they don't happen again.</p><p>On the other hand, this might be a great learning exercise for academia. It might be nice if accredited institutions could review a portion of the details in the interests of study cases; particularly a business ethics class (no that's not an oxymoron).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , the public is just going to crucify the company .
We need to move forward , fix the problems , and make sure they do n't happen again.On the other hand , this might be a great learning exercise for academia .
It might be nice if accredited institutions could review a portion of the details in the interests of study cases ; particularly a business ethics class ( no that 's not an oxymoron ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, the public is just going to crucify the company.
We need to move forward, fix the problems, and make sure they don't happen again.On the other hand, this might be a great learning exercise for academia.
It might be nice if accredited institutions could review a portion of the details in the interests of study cases; particularly a business ethics class (no that's not an oxymoron).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30509618</id>
	<title>Re:Yes.</title>
	<author>cerebrum\_interfectum</author>
	<datestamp>1261338420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Emphasis on "should"...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Emphasis on " should " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Emphasis on "should"...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504184</id>
	<title>Privacy violation !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261327740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... and a "Taking" of private property.<p>
Those emails were made under certain expectations of privacy and confidentiality -- that they would be read by the recepients and authorized corporate officers/audit.  To dump them to the public is a gross violation of those employees rights and shareholder rights -- the minority shareholders \_do\_ have rights.</p><p>
Look at what happens in criminal searches and civil discovery -- anything that does not make it into evidence (much is disputed and requires judge's rulings) remains confidential.  Investigators are granted extraordinary [search] powers, but also have consequent responsibilities.</p><p>
This is data rape, and can have nothing but a chilling effect on legal communications (the badguys don't care).  Prior restraint writ large.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and a " Taking " of private property .
Those emails were made under certain expectations of privacy and confidentiality -- that they would be read by the recepients and authorized corporate officers/audit .
To dump them to the public is a gross violation of those employees rights and shareholder rights -- the minority shareholders \ _do \ _ have rights .
Look at what happens in criminal searches and civil discovery -- anything that does not make it into evidence ( much is disputed and requires judge 's rulings ) remains confidential .
Investigators are granted extraordinary [ search ] powers , but also have consequent responsibilities .
This is data rape , and can have nothing but a chilling effect on legal communications ( the badguys do n't care ) .
Prior restraint writ large .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and a "Taking" of private property.
Those emails were made under certain expectations of privacy and confidentiality -- that they would be read by the recepients and authorized corporate officers/audit.
To dump them to the public is a gross violation of those employees rights and shareholder rights -- the minority shareholders \_do\_ have rights.
Look at what happens in criminal searches and civil discovery -- anything that does not make it into evidence (much is disputed and requires judge's rulings) remains confidential.
Investigators are granted extraordinary [search] powers, but also have consequent responsibilities.
This is data rape, and can have nothing but a chilling effect on legal communications (the badguys don't care).
Prior restraint writ large.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503930</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>192939495969798999</author>
	<datestamp>1261324920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point is that we won't get congress or etc. to split them up without having people really get mad and the only way to get people mad enough to care may be this email thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point is that we wo n't get congress or etc .
to split them up without having people really get mad and the only way to get people mad enough to care may be this email thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point is that we won't get congress or etc.
to split them up without having people really get mad and the only way to get people mad enough to care may be this email thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504676</id>
	<title>Re:Rigghttt...</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1261331160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, Goldman just owns the president and most of the congress.  Having lackeys isn't the same as being the lackey.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , Goldman just owns the president and most of the congress .
Having lackeys is n't the same as being the lackey.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, Goldman just owns the president and most of the congress.
Having lackeys isn't the same as being the lackey.-jcr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30506282</id>
	<title>What we really need...</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1261300740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What we really need is a giant freaking RESET button.  Everybody's debt and credit is now at 0.  You have what you have, start over.  And be smarter this time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What we really need is a giant freaking RESET button .
Everybody 's debt and credit is now at 0 .
You have what you have , start over .
And be smarter this time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we really need is a giant freaking RESET button.
Everybody's debt and credit is now at 0.
You have what you have, start over.
And be smarter this time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30506414</id>
	<title>Re:what would this accomplish?</title>
	<author>Sulphur</author>
	<datestamp>1261302000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fodder for the trolls and pundits</p><p>trodits :  To pass the bridge, you must take a brief survey.</p><p>--</p><p>An update to portage is available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fodder for the trolls and punditstrodits : To pass the bridge , you must take a brief survey.--An update to portage is available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fodder for the trolls and punditstrodits :  To pass the bridge, you must take a brief survey.--An update to portage is available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503848</id>
	<title>Small Print</title>
	<author>Veetox</author>
	<datestamp>1261323900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shouldn't this have been required when the federal government first loaned them the money?  Who F'd that one up?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't this have been required when the federal government first loaned them the money ?
Who F 'd that one up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't this have been required when the federal government first loaned them the money?
Who F'd that one up?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504078</id>
	<title>Pedant alert!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261326660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A new form of *open* investigation. Open source is a software development methodology.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A new form of * open * investigation .
Open source is a software development methodology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A new form of *open* investigation.
Open source is a software development methodology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30512028</id>
	<title>Re:Wasn't this technique used already</title>
	<author>Builder</author>
	<datestamp>1261410660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The politicians argued that they acted within the letter of the rules and it's not their fault that the rules were easy to abuse.</p><p>Several months earlier when Fred Goodwin made off from RBS with a major pension, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk\_politics/7917361.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">Harriet Harperson said that the court of public opinion would stand for it</a> [bbc.co.uk]. When the expenses scandal broke and she was found with her hand in the cookie jar, she backed off of all ideas of the court of public opinion and used the "I didn't break any rules" defence - the same defence that she lambasted Sir Fred for going with.</p><p>So in short, they got away scot free, and will continue to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The politicians argued that they acted within the letter of the rules and it 's not their fault that the rules were easy to abuse.Several months earlier when Fred Goodwin made off from RBS with a major pension , Harriet Harperson said that the court of public opinion would stand for it [ bbc.co.uk ] .
When the expenses scandal broke and she was found with her hand in the cookie jar , she backed off of all ideas of the court of public opinion and used the " I did n't break any rules " defence - the same defence that she lambasted Sir Fred for going with.So in short , they got away scot free , and will continue to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The politicians argued that they acted within the letter of the rules and it's not their fault that the rules were easy to abuse.Several months earlier when Fred Goodwin made off from RBS with a major pension, Harriet Harperson said that the court of public opinion would stand for it [bbc.co.uk].
When the expenses scandal broke and she was found with her hand in the cookie jar, she backed off of all ideas of the court of public opinion and used the "I didn't break any rules" defence - the same defence that she lambasted Sir Fred for going with.So in short, they got away scot free, and will continue to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30506476</id>
	<title>Re:This is an insidious suggestion. BULLCRAP!</title>
	<author>sgt\_doom</author>
	<datestamp>1261302540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"The real sin in the AIG case, to be fair, was not any action of AIG at all."</i> <p>That is such unadulterated bullcrap!  AIG did plenty of things wrong, first and foremost writing zillions of insurance policies (CDSes) without having the requisite capital reserves on hand when they exploded!</p><p>Half of the profits to investment banks goes to compensation, and AIG operated in the same manner.  You are right in allowing AIG to fail, of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The real sin in the AIG case , to be fair , was not any action of AIG at all .
" That is such unadulterated bullcrap !
AIG did plenty of things wrong , first and foremost writing zillions of insurance policies ( CDSes ) without having the requisite capital reserves on hand when they exploded ! Half of the profits to investment banks goes to compensation , and AIG operated in the same manner .
You are right in allowing AIG to fail , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The real sin in the AIG case, to be fair, was not any action of AIG at all.
" That is such unadulterated bullcrap!
AIG did plenty of things wrong, first and foremost writing zillions of insurance policies (CDSes) without having the requisite capital reserves on hand when they exploded!Half of the profits to investment banks goes to compensation, and AIG operated in the same manner.
You are right in allowing AIG to fail, of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30507752</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1261314600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Also the amendments passed in 1992 which mandated banks make high risk loans they wouldn't have made otherwise.</i> <br> <br>However, it is not the loans that caused this problem.  Loans from even low risk are failing at higher than expected rates.  The "sub-prime" crisis was so named because the rich people that control the information about why everything is failing *lied*.  They blamed it on the sub-prime people defaulting.  Defaulting doesn't hurt a bank if they predicted correctly.  What happened is that the people at the bank who assign risk, were wrong.  Why were they wrong?  Because any leeway given in issuing loans were skewed to issue the loan.  Loans were given to people who couldn't afford them.  Then, after 1 on-time payment, the loan was sold, bundled as low-risk because of the perfect on-time record, then borrowed against 9 times.  The bank guessed the risk wrong.  The bank lied in presenting high risk loans as low risk.<br> <br>The amendment in 1992 was great.  It was needed.  Some people would walk into a bank and be escorted out because of their home address.  It didn't matter what their finances were, they were not going to get the loan.  And loans *should* be given to people with poor credit, and that's done every day.  You assess the risk, and assign a rate that covers it.  This failure here was because the banks were wrong about the foreclosure risk, and, on top of that, lied about the risks of high-risk loans.  That people defaulted is something that's obvious.  It's happened since the beginning of credit thousands of years ago.  To pretend that this new concept caught the banks off guard is absurd.  <br> <br> <br>But the banks got to name it, and named it "sub-prime" and blamed people that had no capability to prevent this mess.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also the amendments passed in 1992 which mandated banks make high risk loans they would n't have made otherwise .
However , it is not the loans that caused this problem .
Loans from even low risk are failing at higher than expected rates .
The " sub-prime " crisis was so named because the rich people that control the information about why everything is failing * lied * .
They blamed it on the sub-prime people defaulting .
Defaulting does n't hurt a bank if they predicted correctly .
What happened is that the people at the bank who assign risk , were wrong .
Why were they wrong ?
Because any leeway given in issuing loans were skewed to issue the loan .
Loans were given to people who could n't afford them .
Then , after 1 on-time payment , the loan was sold , bundled as low-risk because of the perfect on-time record , then borrowed against 9 times .
The bank guessed the risk wrong .
The bank lied in presenting high risk loans as low risk .
The amendment in 1992 was great .
It was needed .
Some people would walk into a bank and be escorted out because of their home address .
It did n't matter what their finances were , they were not going to get the loan .
And loans * should * be given to people with poor credit , and that 's done every day .
You assess the risk , and assign a rate that covers it .
This failure here was because the banks were wrong about the foreclosure risk , and , on top of that , lied about the risks of high-risk loans .
That people defaulted is something that 's obvious .
It 's happened since the beginning of credit thousands of years ago .
To pretend that this new concept caught the banks off guard is absurd .
But the banks got to name it , and named it " sub-prime " and blamed people that had no capability to prevent this mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also the amendments passed in 1992 which mandated banks make high risk loans they wouldn't have made otherwise.
However, it is not the loans that caused this problem.
Loans from even low risk are failing at higher than expected rates.
The "sub-prime" crisis was so named because the rich people that control the information about why everything is failing *lied*.
They blamed it on the sub-prime people defaulting.
Defaulting doesn't hurt a bank if they predicted correctly.
What happened is that the people at the bank who assign risk, were wrong.
Why were they wrong?
Because any leeway given in issuing loans were skewed to issue the loan.
Loans were given to people who couldn't afford them.
Then, after 1 on-time payment, the loan was sold, bundled as low-risk because of the perfect on-time record, then borrowed against 9 times.
The bank guessed the risk wrong.
The bank lied in presenting high risk loans as low risk.
The amendment in 1992 was great.
It was needed.
Some people would walk into a bank and be escorted out because of their home address.
It didn't matter what their finances were, they were not going to get the loan.
And loans *should* be given to people with poor credit, and that's done every day.
You assess the risk, and assign a rate that covers it.
This failure here was because the banks were wrong about the foreclosure risk, and, on top of that, lied about the risks of high-risk loans.
That people defaulted is something that's obvious.
It's happened since the beginning of credit thousands of years ago.
To pretend that this new concept caught the banks off guard is absurd.
But the banks got to name it, and named it "sub-prime" and blamed people that had no capability to prevent this mess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504432</id>
	<title>Obama</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261329420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama... he and his team are perhaps the most pro-corporate administration I've ever seen in office.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama... he and his team are perhaps the most pro-corporate administration I 've ever seen in office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama... he and his team are perhaps the most pro-corporate administration I've ever seen in office.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504290</id>
	<title>Re:Superheroes</title>
	<author>mhelander</author>
	<datestamp>1261328520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you're saying law should be executed privately lest the public go vigilante without even wearing spandex?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're saying law should be executed privately lest the public go vigilante without even wearing spandex ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're saying law should be executed privately lest the public go vigilante without even wearing spandex?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30505854</id>
	<title>Re:Keep Dreaming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261340700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for the blanket statement. +4 Informative, buddy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the blanket statement .
+ 4 Informative , buddy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the blanket statement.
+4 Informative, buddy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503996</id>
	<title>Will be a fun test of sovreign immunity</title>
	<author>SlappyBastard</author>
	<datestamp>1261325580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's find out, in court, whether the shareholders or the government is sacred.  This will be fun when the shareholders sue the government.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's find out , in court , whether the shareholders or the government is sacred .
This will be fun when the shareholders sue the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's find out, in court, whether the shareholders or the government is sacred.
This will be fun when the shareholders sue the government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503828</id>
	<title>Keep Dreaming</title>
	<author>arcticinfantry</author>
	<datestamp>1261323720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This will *never* happen.  GS is far too powerful to let that happen.  The AIG bailout was quite simply a giveaway to GS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will * never * happen .
GS is far too powerful to let that happen .
The AIG bailout was quite simply a giveaway to GS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will *never* happen.
GS is far too powerful to let that happen.
The AIG bailout was quite simply a giveaway to GS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504590</id>
	<title>with a license to kill</title>
	<author>mnemotronic</author>
	<datestamp>1261330620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Emails, that is.  But please, no "frontier justice".  The lawyers would miss their cut.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Emails , that is .
But please , no " frontier justice " .
The lawyers would miss their cut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Emails, that is.
But please, no "frontier justice".
The lawyers would miss their cut.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30509096</id>
	<title>if only....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261330980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>now if only there was this kind of disclosure about 9/11...oh wait...</htmltext>
<tokenext>now if only there was this kind of disclosure about 9/11...oh wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now if only there was this kind of disclosure about 9/11...oh wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30574662</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1262032680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Yes, several harmful changes to banking laws made during the nineties need to be rolled back, including the the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act as it was pushed through by Sens. Dodd and Schumer.</i></p><p>Yes, far too many Democrats voted for Gramm-Leach-Baily, and Clinton signed it, but lets not forget that Gramm, Leach and Baily were Republicans and that it passed under a Republican Congress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , several harmful changes to banking laws made during the nineties need to be rolled back , including the the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act as it was pushed through by Sens .
Dodd and Schumer.Yes , far too many Democrats voted for Gramm-Leach-Baily , and Clinton signed it , but lets not forget that Gramm , Leach and Baily were Republicans and that it passed under a Republican Congress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, several harmful changes to banking laws made during the nineties need to be rolled back, including the the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act as it was pushed through by Sens.
Dodd and Schumer.Yes, far too many Democrats voted for Gramm-Leach-Baily, and Clinton signed it, but lets not forget that Gramm, Leach and Baily were Republicans and that it passed under a Republican Congress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30516512</id>
	<title>Re:It's a start</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261388400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like to see the emails released just so people would STFU about Goldman conspiracies... the story here is idiocy not conspiracy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see the emails released just so people would STFU about Goldman conspiracies... the story here is idiocy not conspiracy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to see the emails released just so people would STFU about Goldman conspiracies... the story here is idiocy not conspiracy</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30507738</id>
	<title>Re:Hrmm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261314540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unlike movies, the guys in high places taking home the multimillion-dollar salaries 99\% of the time don't do anything wrong.</p><p>Happy fact of capitalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike movies , the guys in high places taking home the multimillion-dollar salaries 99 \ % of the time do n't do anything wrong.Happy fact of capitalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike movies, the guys in high places taking home the multimillion-dollar salaries 99\% of the time don't do anything wrong.Happy fact of capitalism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504004</id>
	<title>Not clear on what the problem is</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1261325760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not clear on what these guys are worried about. As far as I can tell, there was no expectation that this money was anything other than wasted, tossed down a giant rathole. So if we find, that say it got spent on a really amazing pool party or lost again in the same way that the original money had been squandered? Well that meets expectations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not clear on what these guys are worried about .
As far as I can tell , there was no expectation that this money was anything other than wasted , tossed down a giant rathole .
So if we find , that say it got spent on a really amazing pool party or lost again in the same way that the original money had been squandered ?
Well that meets expectations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not clear on what these guys are worried about.
As far as I can tell, there was no expectation that this money was anything other than wasted, tossed down a giant rathole.
So if we find, that say it got spent on a really amazing pool party or lost again in the same way that the original money had been squandered?
Well that meets expectations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503896</id>
	<title>Hell yeah it's a good idea</title>
	<author>jayhawk88</author>
	<datestamp>1261324440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is why it will never, never happen. You'll learn the truth about Roswell and JFK before you see those emails.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is why it will never , never happen .
You 'll learn the truth about Roswell and JFK before you see those emails .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is why it will never, never happen.
You'll learn the truth about Roswell and JFK before you see those emails.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30512372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30505158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30506282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30505210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30506452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30508186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30505176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30505852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30510100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30514314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30507554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30506476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30506568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30512028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30506414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30507752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30505854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30508884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30507966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30507554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30512232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30507854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30574632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30574662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30516512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30507738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30505232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30509618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30508832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30506248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30512376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503824
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_138226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_138226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_138226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30506452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30507738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_138226.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30506414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_138226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30516512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_138226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_138226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_138226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_138226.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30507554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30514314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30507966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30512376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30505158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30505176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30512372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30512232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504194
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30505232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30508832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30509618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_138226.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504184
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_138226.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_138226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_138226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30506476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_138226.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_138226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30508884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30506248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504186
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_138226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30507854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_138226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504838
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_138226.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30506568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30574632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503934
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30506282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504044
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30507752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30508186
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504488
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30574662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_138226.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30512028
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_138226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_138226.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30505210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30505854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_138226.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_138226.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30505138
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_138226.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30503832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30505852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30510100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_138226.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30505436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_138226.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_138226.30504900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
