<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_03_0631237</id>
	<title>DC Sues AT&amp;T For Unclaimed Phone Minutes</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1262523420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Suki I submits news that Washington, D.C.'s attorney general has filed suit (<em>District of Columbia vs. AT&amp;T Corp</em>, Superior Court of the District of Columbia), claiming the city has the right, through laws applying to unclaimed property, to unused calling-card balances held in the name of D.C. residents. <i>"The suit claims that <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BU3NF20091231">AT&amp;T should turn over unused balances on the calling cards</a> of consumers whose last known address was in Washington, D.C. and have not used the calling card for three years. 'AT&amp;T's prepaid calling cards must be treated as unclaimed property under district law,' the attorney general's office said in a statement. ... [That sum] represents some 5 to 20 percent of the total balances purchased by consumers who use the calling cards. States and municipalities have often similarly used unclaimed property laws, known as escheat laws, to claim ownership of unused retail gift card balances."</i>

Suki I links also to <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/03/dc-to-att-all-your-unused-minu">Reason Magazine's coverage</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Suki I submits news that Washington , D.C. 's attorney general has filed suit ( District of Columbia vs. AT&amp;T Corp , Superior Court of the District of Columbia ) , claiming the city has the right , through laws applying to unclaimed property , to unused calling-card balances held in the name of D.C. residents. " The suit claims that AT&amp;T should turn over unused balances on the calling cards of consumers whose last known address was in Washington , D.C. and have not used the calling card for three years .
'AT&amp;T 's prepaid calling cards must be treated as unclaimed property under district law, ' the attorney general 's office said in a statement .
... [ That sum ] represents some 5 to 20 percent of the total balances purchased by consumers who use the calling cards .
States and municipalities have often similarly used unclaimed property laws , known as escheat laws , to claim ownership of unused retail gift card balances .
" Suki I links also to Reason Magazine 's coverage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suki I submits news that Washington, D.C.'s attorney general has filed suit (District of Columbia vs. AT&amp;T Corp, Superior Court of the District of Columbia), claiming the city has the right, through laws applying to unclaimed property, to unused calling-card balances held in the name of D.C. residents. "The suit claims that AT&amp;T should turn over unused balances on the calling cards of consumers whose last known address was in Washington, D.C. and have not used the calling card for three years.
'AT&amp;T's prepaid calling cards must be treated as unclaimed property under district law,' the attorney general's office said in a statement.
... [That sum] represents some 5 to 20 percent of the total balances purchased by consumers who use the calling cards.
States and municipalities have often similarly used unclaimed property laws, known as escheat laws, to claim ownership of unused retail gift card balances.
"

Suki I links also to Reason Magazine's coverage.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631352</id>
	<title>Screw AT&amp;T</title>
	<author>Bob\_Who</author>
	<datestamp>1262530620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They've been screwing us for years.  What ever happened to the anti trust laws that smashed them into baby bells?  I'm tired of over paying for electrons.  Telecom is a major rip off, mostly we pay for advertising.  We should make them pay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've been screwing us for years .
What ever happened to the anti trust laws that smashed them into baby bells ?
I 'm tired of over paying for electrons .
Telecom is a major rip off , mostly we pay for advertising .
We should make them pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've been screwing us for years.
What ever happened to the anti trust laws that smashed them into baby bells?
I'm tired of over paying for electrons.
Telecom is a major rip off, mostly we pay for advertising.
We should make them pay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633750</id>
	<title>Re:Big internet access bonus for the DC area</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262509260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when I went to DC you had to pay per pound of food in a buffet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when I went to DC you had to pay per pound of food in a buffet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when I went to DC you had to pay per pound of food in a buffet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631606</id>
	<title>Re:Yes!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262533440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually checks don't expire. I worked at a bank for many years-many people think they expire but no. If you still hae the account the check was written on or the account was just recently closed then the check is honored.</p><p>While were at it, there is no such thing as a post-dated check. Someone might agree to wait till a certain date to cash a check but there is nothing obligating them to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually checks do n't expire .
I worked at a bank for many years-many people think they expire but no .
If you still hae the account the check was written on or the account was just recently closed then the check is honored.While were at it , there is no such thing as a post-dated check .
Someone might agree to wait till a certain date to cash a check but there is nothing obligating them to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually checks don't expire.
I worked at a bank for many years-many people think they expire but no.
If you still hae the account the check was written on or the account was just recently closed then the check is honored.While were at it, there is no such thing as a post-dated check.
Someone might agree to wait till a certain date to cash a check but there is nothing obligating them to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631460</id>
	<title>Re:Yes!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262532000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As consumers, we might hate it, but you have to think of it this way...  a gift card is an outstanding debt.  A business doesn't want to have thousands or tens of thousands of tiny outstanding debts floating around FOREVER.  That is the main reason there are "fees" to reduce the value of the card to zero when it isn't used.</p><p>It is the same idea as having checks expire after 180 days.  If someone doesn't cash the check, it can't just sit out there "forever".  The business needs to write off that debt so they can clean up their books.  Otherwise, someone could come back 10 years later and cash it.  Think of your own checks- would you like it if someone you wrote a check to sat on it for 5 years, then cashed it at a time when you least had the ability to pay for it?</p><p>I don't think it is unreasonable to have some type of expiration date or balance reduction time limit on gift cards, as long as it isn't too soon.</p></div><p>Are you serious, outstanding dept. When you go and buy a gift card its paid, they got their money, period! Deducting a monthly debit on the card or claiming the remaining balance is taking from the consumer.<br>This is another reason why I do not buy gift cards.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As consumers , we might hate it , but you have to think of it this way... a gift card is an outstanding debt .
A business does n't want to have thousands or tens of thousands of tiny outstanding debts floating around FOREVER .
That is the main reason there are " fees " to reduce the value of the card to zero when it is n't used.It is the same idea as having checks expire after 180 days .
If someone does n't cash the check , it ca n't just sit out there " forever " .
The business needs to write off that debt so they can clean up their books .
Otherwise , someone could come back 10 years later and cash it .
Think of your own checks- would you like it if someone you wrote a check to sat on it for 5 years , then cashed it at a time when you least had the ability to pay for it ? I do n't think it is unreasonable to have some type of expiration date or balance reduction time limit on gift cards , as long as it is n't too soon.Are you serious , outstanding dept .
When you go and buy a gift card its paid , they got their money , period !
Deducting a monthly debit on the card or claiming the remaining balance is taking from the consumer.This is another reason why I do not buy gift cards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As consumers, we might hate it, but you have to think of it this way...  a gift card is an outstanding debt.
A business doesn't want to have thousands or tens of thousands of tiny outstanding debts floating around FOREVER.
That is the main reason there are "fees" to reduce the value of the card to zero when it isn't used.It is the same idea as having checks expire after 180 days.
If someone doesn't cash the check, it can't just sit out there "forever".
The business needs to write off that debt so they can clean up their books.
Otherwise, someone could come back 10 years later and cash it.
Think of your own checks- would you like it if someone you wrote a check to sat on it for 5 years, then cashed it at a time when you least had the ability to pay for it?I don't think it is unreasonable to have some type of expiration date or balance reduction time limit on gift cards, as long as it isn't too soon.Are you serious, outstanding dept.
When you go and buy a gift card its paid, they got their money, period!
Deducting a monthly debit on the card or claiming the remaining balance is taking from the consumer.This is another reason why I do not buy gift cards.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30634140</id>
	<title>Amanda Seyfried/Julianne Moore love scene?  Check!</title>
	<author>Impy the Impiuos Imp</author>
	<datestamp>1262512560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A certain percent of unclaimed minutes are built into the cost structure of the phone companies, allowing lower rates.  It's similar to unused miles on airlines' frequent flier programs.</p><p>Government being what it is, it's not surprising they're trying to seize it.  This will just increase costs for DC residents.  It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and is thus a tax, regardless of the mental gymnastics (read: accounting "irregularities") used to justify it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A certain percent of unclaimed minutes are built into the cost structure of the phone companies , allowing lower rates .
It 's similar to unused miles on airlines ' frequent flier programs.Government being what it is , it 's not surprising they 're trying to seize it .
This will just increase costs for DC residents .
It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck , and is thus a tax , regardless of the mental gymnastics ( read : accounting " irregularities " ) used to justify it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A certain percent of unclaimed minutes are built into the cost structure of the phone companies, allowing lower rates.
It's similar to unused miles on airlines' frequent flier programs.Government being what it is, it's not surprising they're trying to seize it.
This will just increase costs for DC residents.
It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and is thus a tax, regardless of the mental gymnastics (read: accounting "irregularities") used to justify it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631804</id>
	<title>Re:All your value belong to us? Nope.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262535660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>that money is transferred to the government who will publish your name in a massive newspaper insert</p></div><p>As far back as 1998, most states had their escheat lists online so, even if they were required to publish the list in the paper, you didn't have to spend time looking there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>that money is transferred to the government who will publish your name in a massive newspaper insertAs far back as 1998 , most states had their escheat lists online so , even if they were required to publish the list in the paper , you did n't have to spend time looking there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that money is transferred to the government who will publish your name in a massive newspaper insertAs far back as 1998, most states had their escheat lists online so, even if they were required to publish the list in the paper, you didn't have to spend time looking there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631918</id>
	<title>Re:Big internet access bonus for the DC area</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262536920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So anything that's unclaimed like this defaults back to the city? I wonder what they're going to do with the remainder of everyone's unclaimed, unlimited internet access each month. Did they pool the unused hours off of old AOL CDs? What about all-you-can-eat buffets? Solved DC's hunger problems right there.</p></div></blockquote><p>Dear Sir/Madam</p><p>We find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.</p><p>Best regards:<br>The lawyers</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So anything that 's unclaimed like this defaults back to the city ?
I wonder what they 're going to do with the remainder of everyone 's unclaimed , unlimited internet access each month .
Did they pool the unused hours off of old AOL CDs ?
What about all-you-can-eat buffets ?
Solved DC 's hunger problems right there.Dear Sir/MadamWe find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.Best regards : The lawyers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So anything that's unclaimed like this defaults back to the city?
I wonder what they're going to do with the remainder of everyone's unclaimed, unlimited internet access each month.
Did they pool the unused hours off of old AOL CDs?
What about all-you-can-eat buffets?
Solved DC's hunger problems right there.Dear Sir/MadamWe find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.Best regards:The lawyers
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632410</id>
	<title>Re:They should never expire</title>
	<author>c0d3g33k</author>
	<datestamp>1262541900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lame?  Not always - gift cards are quite useful in many circumstances, so don't write them off so glibly.  Before gift cards (yes, there was such a time) giving people "throughly liquid cash" as a gift meant they were just as likely to use it to pay the rent, buy groceries or stick it in their wallet with the other liquid cash and spend it for ordinary things, not the intended gift.  In the face of this, gift cards were a nice way to help the recipient "treat themselves" as intended rather than just spend the money on mundane necessities.  The point of a gift, after all, is to give the recipient something special they might not have allowed themselves to purchase on their own (that's what we try to do in my family, anyhow).</p><p>Why not just buy the gift instead?  Gift cards (or cash) are a copout for the lazy so they don't have to bother figuring out a "proper" gift, right?  No, not always.  There are plenty of people who have hobbies or interests that are specialized and complex, so trying guess what they really want can lead to the wrong gift.  Yeah, one could ask enough questions to determine the correct gift, but that's just as likely to spoil the surprise - might as well just ask "tell me exactly what you want and I'll buy that".  Rather than buy the wrong TV or game or computer or whatever, you can buy a gift card for the place where the desired gift is sold, and you can be reasonably sure that the recipient gets exactly what they want, and you don't blow the surprise either.</p><p>As far as the value of the purchase not matching the value of the card, that's not as simple as you cynically describe it either.  Consider the situation where someone wants an expensive item that doesn't quite fit their budget.  They won't buy what they really want because they can't afford it.  Maybe you can't either (not entirely, anyway).  Giving a gift card is a great way to help partially pay for the item when buying the item outright isn't feasible.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lame ?
Not always - gift cards are quite useful in many circumstances , so do n't write them off so glibly .
Before gift cards ( yes , there was such a time ) giving people " throughly liquid cash " as a gift meant they were just as likely to use it to pay the rent , buy groceries or stick it in their wallet with the other liquid cash and spend it for ordinary things , not the intended gift .
In the face of this , gift cards were a nice way to help the recipient " treat themselves " as intended rather than just spend the money on mundane necessities .
The point of a gift , after all , is to give the recipient something special they might not have allowed themselves to purchase on their own ( that 's what we try to do in my family , anyhow ) .Why not just buy the gift instead ?
Gift cards ( or cash ) are a copout for the lazy so they do n't have to bother figuring out a " proper " gift , right ?
No , not always .
There are plenty of people who have hobbies or interests that are specialized and complex , so trying guess what they really want can lead to the wrong gift .
Yeah , one could ask enough questions to determine the correct gift , but that 's just as likely to spoil the surprise - might as well just ask " tell me exactly what you want and I 'll buy that " .
Rather than buy the wrong TV or game or computer or whatever , you can buy a gift card for the place where the desired gift is sold , and you can be reasonably sure that the recipient gets exactly what they want , and you do n't blow the surprise either.As far as the value of the purchase not matching the value of the card , that 's not as simple as you cynically describe it either .
Consider the situation where someone wants an expensive item that does n't quite fit their budget .
They wo n't buy what they really want because they ca n't afford it .
Maybe you ca n't either ( not entirely , anyway ) .
Giving a gift card is a great way to help partially pay for the item when buying the item outright is n't feasible .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lame?
Not always - gift cards are quite useful in many circumstances, so don't write them off so glibly.
Before gift cards (yes, there was such a time) giving people "throughly liquid cash" as a gift meant they were just as likely to use it to pay the rent, buy groceries or stick it in their wallet with the other liquid cash and spend it for ordinary things, not the intended gift.
In the face of this, gift cards were a nice way to help the recipient "treat themselves" as intended rather than just spend the money on mundane necessities.
The point of a gift, after all, is to give the recipient something special they might not have allowed themselves to purchase on their own (that's what we try to do in my family, anyhow).Why not just buy the gift instead?
Gift cards (or cash) are a copout for the lazy so they don't have to bother figuring out a "proper" gift, right?
No, not always.
There are plenty of people who have hobbies or interests that are specialized and complex, so trying guess what they really want can lead to the wrong gift.
Yeah, one could ask enough questions to determine the correct gift, but that's just as likely to spoil the surprise - might as well just ask "tell me exactly what you want and I'll buy that".
Rather than buy the wrong TV or game or computer or whatever, you can buy a gift card for the place where the desired gift is sold, and you can be reasonably sure that the recipient gets exactly what they want, and you don't blow the surprise either.As far as the value of the purchase not matching the value of the card, that's not as simple as you cynically describe it either.
Consider the situation where someone wants an expensive item that doesn't quite fit their budget.
They won't buy what they really want because they can't afford it.
Maybe you can't either (not entirely, anyway).
Giving a gift card is a great way to help partially pay for the item when buying the item outright isn't feasible.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631370</id>
	<title>They should never expire</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262530800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't mean gift cards. I'll rant about them in a minute. But phone cards; we're talking about truly minimal data here, it's one row in a database. AT&amp;T could issue phone cards for years before the amount of data they'd have to store would become an undue financial burden to their evil empire, death star asses.</p><p>Gift cards are lame: Why not just give the gift of <em>cash</em> if you care so little about someone that all you can do is send them to a store you think they would like? Gift cards: the gift that says "I have no fucking imagination." I dread holidays because of the expectations surrounding gift giving, but even I can do better than that. Phone cards, though</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't mean gift cards .
I 'll rant about them in a minute .
But phone cards ; we 're talking about truly minimal data here , it 's one row in a database .
AT&amp;T could issue phone cards for years before the amount of data they 'd have to store would become an undue financial burden to their evil empire , death star asses.Gift cards are lame : Why not just give the gift of cash if you care so little about someone that all you can do is send them to a store you think they would like ?
Gift cards : the gift that says " I have no fucking imagination .
" I dread holidays because of the expectations surrounding gift giving , but even I can do better than that .
Phone cards , though</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't mean gift cards.
I'll rant about them in a minute.
But phone cards; we're talking about truly minimal data here, it's one row in a database.
AT&amp;T could issue phone cards for years before the amount of data they'd have to store would become an undue financial burden to their evil empire, death star asses.Gift cards are lame: Why not just give the gift of cash if you care so little about someone that all you can do is send them to a store you think they would like?
Gift cards: the gift that says "I have no fucking imagination.
" I dread holidays because of the expectations surrounding gift giving, but even I can do better than that.
Phone cards, though</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631614</id>
	<title>Re:Yes!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262533680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Finally. I HATE the way retailers are predating on consumers. I do not give gift cards because of this. Companies are stealing by devaluing cards. They have our money, interest free. The gift cards should stay valid forever. I hope the government nails them on this hard. Retroactively too.</p></div><p>Yeah, those retailers are FORCING people to buy their gift cards!</p><p>FORCING them, I say!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally .
I HATE the way retailers are predating on consumers .
I do not give gift cards because of this .
Companies are stealing by devaluing cards .
They have our money , interest free .
The gift cards should stay valid forever .
I hope the government nails them on this hard .
Retroactively too.Yeah , those retailers are FORCING people to buy their gift cards ! FORCING them , I say !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally.
I HATE the way retailers are predating on consumers.
I do not give gift cards because of this.
Companies are stealing by devaluing cards.
They have our money, interest free.
The gift cards should stay valid forever.
I hope the government nails them on this hard.
Retroactively too.Yeah, those retailers are FORCING people to buy their gift cards!FORCING them, I say!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30638100</id>
	<title>Re:Big internet access bonus for the DC area</title>
	<author>bzipitidoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262548380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those parking meter minutes are reclaimed.  It is a government that operates them and collects that revenue, is it not?

</p><p>However, I greatly dislike parking meters.  Same as red light cameras, the intent is not only for safety or reducing demand for scarce resources by charging for them and collecting that small change, it is also to generate violations, which thanks to the huge fines is much more lucrative.  I almost never park in a metered spot.  Too much risk of getting a parking ticket, too much underhanded effort put into making that happen.  I've seen meter police hovering over a meter that is about to expire, with a ticket already written, and I shouldn't be surprised if some meters have a tendency to run a tiny bit fast.  I recall the case of Sylvia Stayton of Cincinnati getting into big trouble for being nice by feeding coins into meters that were about to expire.  She sure exposed the real intent.  I expect downtowns to have such schemes, and I either avoid them or arrange not to park a car there.  Everyone hates it, but most do not hate it enough, and will still park there.

</p><p>We could force the abandonment of these rotten schemes by not playing along.  That sometimes happens.  I wish it happened more often.

</p><p>As for gift cards, they're more a symptom.  The real problem is too much expectation and the kinds of gift giving.  How have we trapped ourselves into turning what should be an act of generosity and thoughtfulness into a burdensome obligation that is supposedly necessary for the health of our economy?  The worth of a gift is too connected to its cost.  We're expected to give too many gifts.  It's too hard to pick good ones, and we often miss there.  Gift cards are an insidious short cut.  But they're not completely bad when they cut down on the waste of returning an unwanted gift and getting something else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those parking meter minutes are reclaimed .
It is a government that operates them and collects that revenue , is it not ?
However , I greatly dislike parking meters .
Same as red light cameras , the intent is not only for safety or reducing demand for scarce resources by charging for them and collecting that small change , it is also to generate violations , which thanks to the huge fines is much more lucrative .
I almost never park in a metered spot .
Too much risk of getting a parking ticket , too much underhanded effort put into making that happen .
I 've seen meter police hovering over a meter that is about to expire , with a ticket already written , and I should n't be surprised if some meters have a tendency to run a tiny bit fast .
I recall the case of Sylvia Stayton of Cincinnati getting into big trouble for being nice by feeding coins into meters that were about to expire .
She sure exposed the real intent .
I expect downtowns to have such schemes , and I either avoid them or arrange not to park a car there .
Everyone hates it , but most do not hate it enough , and will still park there .
We could force the abandonment of these rotten schemes by not playing along .
That sometimes happens .
I wish it happened more often .
As for gift cards , they 're more a symptom .
The real problem is too much expectation and the kinds of gift giving .
How have we trapped ourselves into turning what should be an act of generosity and thoughtfulness into a burdensome obligation that is supposedly necessary for the health of our economy ?
The worth of a gift is too connected to its cost .
We 're expected to give too many gifts .
It 's too hard to pick good ones , and we often miss there .
Gift cards are an insidious short cut .
But they 're not completely bad when they cut down on the waste of returning an unwanted gift and getting something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those parking meter minutes are reclaimed.
It is a government that operates them and collects that revenue, is it not?
However, I greatly dislike parking meters.
Same as red light cameras, the intent is not only for safety or reducing demand for scarce resources by charging for them and collecting that small change, it is also to generate violations, which thanks to the huge fines is much more lucrative.
I almost never park in a metered spot.
Too much risk of getting a parking ticket, too much underhanded effort put into making that happen.
I've seen meter police hovering over a meter that is about to expire, with a ticket already written, and I shouldn't be surprised if some meters have a tendency to run a tiny bit fast.
I recall the case of Sylvia Stayton of Cincinnati getting into big trouble for being nice by feeding coins into meters that were about to expire.
She sure exposed the real intent.
I expect downtowns to have such schemes, and I either avoid them or arrange not to park a car there.
Everyone hates it, but most do not hate it enough, and will still park there.
We could force the abandonment of these rotten schemes by not playing along.
That sometimes happens.
I wish it happened more often.
As for gift cards, they're more a symptom.
The real problem is too much expectation and the kinds of gift giving.
How have we trapped ourselves into turning what should be an act of generosity and thoughtfulness into a burdensome obligation that is supposedly necessary for the health of our economy?
The worth of a gift is too connected to its cost.
We're expected to give too many gifts.
It's too hard to pick good ones, and we often miss there.
Gift cards are an insidious short cut.
But they're not completely bad when they cut down on the waste of returning an unwanted gift and getting something else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30634220</id>
	<title>Re:Yes!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262513220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why there is escrow. The retailer should be required to put the money into an escrow account that is untouchable ecept when the owner of the money - the gift card holder. Upon the gift card money being used to purchase something, the money would transfer from the pool of money that everyone is in, to the company and thus their account books for shareholder, payment and tax purposes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why there is escrow .
The retailer should be required to put the money into an escrow account that is untouchable ecept when the owner of the money - the gift card holder .
Upon the gift card money being used to purchase something , the money would transfer from the pool of money that everyone is in , to the company and thus their account books for shareholder , payment and tax purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why there is escrow.
The retailer should be required to put the money into an escrow account that is untouchable ecept when the owner of the money - the gift card holder.
Upon the gift card money being used to purchase something, the money would transfer from the pool of money that everyone is in, to the company and thus their account books for shareholder, payment and tax purposes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633326</id>
	<title>I think there's a big flaw in the law ....</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1262548080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I, as a consumer, purchase a pre-paid card with X number of usable minutes on it, I typically plan on using the whole thing, OR I'm not that concerned, because the ability to make some phone calls, as needed, is what I'm really paying for to begin with.  If the fine print on the card informs me, before the purchase, that there's an expiration date on the card - then fine.  I can opt to accept that, or decline the purchase if I think that's unacceptable.</p><p>I don't really have a problem with the phone company selling the cards keeping expired, unused balances as a profit.  It makes no sense to me that govt. should expend resources of its own to "manage" these unused balances.  How much does it really cost the taxpayers annually to keep that system going?  (They've got to keep paying to place those unclaimed property ads in the newspapers, I assume<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... and keep a staff employed to keep track of everything.)</p><p>Inactivity fees are a different issue, though<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... because most of the time, they were designed to catch the unaware by surprise.  People who assumed a $100 gift card would still be worth $100 when they got around to visiting the store 6 months after issuance shouldn't be suddenly told "You only have $40 left because we deducted $10 for each month you didn't use it!"  You don't see manufacturer coupons or rebates deducting portions of the total discount depending on how quickly you use them.  But you DO almost always see expiration dates clearly stated on them, and we all understand that concept.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I , as a consumer , purchase a pre-paid card with X number of usable minutes on it , I typically plan on using the whole thing , OR I 'm not that concerned , because the ability to make some phone calls , as needed , is what I 'm really paying for to begin with .
If the fine print on the card informs me , before the purchase , that there 's an expiration date on the card - then fine .
I can opt to accept that , or decline the purchase if I think that 's unacceptable.I do n't really have a problem with the phone company selling the cards keeping expired , unused balances as a profit .
It makes no sense to me that govt .
should expend resources of its own to " manage " these unused balances .
How much does it really cost the taxpayers annually to keep that system going ?
( They 've got to keep paying to place those unclaimed property ads in the newspapers , I assume .... and keep a staff employed to keep track of everything .
) Inactivity fees are a different issue , though ... because most of the time , they were designed to catch the unaware by surprise .
People who assumed a $ 100 gift card would still be worth $ 100 when they got around to visiting the store 6 months after issuance should n't be suddenly told " You only have $ 40 left because we deducted $ 10 for each month you did n't use it !
" You do n't see manufacturer coupons or rebates deducting portions of the total discount depending on how quickly you use them .
But you DO almost always see expiration dates clearly stated on them , and we all understand that concept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I, as a consumer, purchase a pre-paid card with X number of usable minutes on it, I typically plan on using the whole thing, OR I'm not that concerned, because the ability to make some phone calls, as needed, is what I'm really paying for to begin with.
If the fine print on the card informs me, before the purchase, that there's an expiration date on the card - then fine.
I can opt to accept that, or decline the purchase if I think that's unacceptable.I don't really have a problem with the phone company selling the cards keeping expired, unused balances as a profit.
It makes no sense to me that govt.
should expend resources of its own to "manage" these unused balances.
How much does it really cost the taxpayers annually to keep that system going?
(They've got to keep paying to place those unclaimed property ads in the newspapers, I assume .... and keep a staff employed to keep track of everything.
)Inactivity fees are a different issue, though ... because most of the time, they were designed to catch the unaware by surprise.
People who assumed a $100 gift card would still be worth $100 when they got around to visiting the store 6 months after issuance shouldn't be suddenly told "You only have $40 left because we deducted $10 for each month you didn't use it!
"  You don't see manufacturer coupons or rebates deducting portions of the total discount depending on how quickly you use them.
But you DO almost always see expiration dates clearly stated on them, and we all understand that concept.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631594</id>
	<title>Re:Yes!!!</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1262533260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's reasonable.  There's one problem though - if the issuer can profit from unused balances the issuer has an incentive to encourage people not to redeem their gift cards.</p><p>Requiring unused balances be transferred to the public coffers removes that incentive and retains the benefits of gift cards that expire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's reasonable .
There 's one problem though - if the issuer can profit from unused balances the issuer has an incentive to encourage people not to redeem their gift cards.Requiring unused balances be transferred to the public coffers removes that incentive and retains the benefits of gift cards that expire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's reasonable.
There's one problem though - if the issuer can profit from unused balances the issuer has an incentive to encourage people not to redeem their gift cards.Requiring unused balances be transferred to the public coffers removes that incentive and retains the benefits of gift cards that expire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631210</id>
	<title>Lawyers</title>
	<author>ebonum</author>
	<datestamp>1262528220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow. I gotta hand it to them.  It is times like this when when we should all take note of how lawyers really are a breed apart.  I understand the theory, and it does makes sense.  Mind you, understanding and agreeing are not one in the same.  But how twisted do you have to be to come up with stuff like this?  I never would have thought of that!</p><p>As the said in the LotR about the lawyers foreclosing on the shire ( I think it was LotR, The Revenge ).<br>"There's something strange at work here. Some evil drives these creatures, sets its will against us."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
I got ta hand it to them .
It is times like this when when we should all take note of how lawyers really are a breed apart .
I understand the theory , and it does makes sense .
Mind you , understanding and agreeing are not one in the same .
But how twisted do you have to be to come up with stuff like this ?
I never would have thought of that ! As the said in the LotR about the lawyers foreclosing on the shire ( I think it was LotR , The Revenge ) .
" There 's something strange at work here .
Some evil drives these creatures , sets its will against us .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
I gotta hand it to them.
It is times like this when when we should all take note of how lawyers really are a breed apart.
I understand the theory, and it does makes sense.
Mind you, understanding and agreeing are not one in the same.
But how twisted do you have to be to come up with stuff like this?
I never would have thought of that!As the said in the LotR about the lawyers foreclosing on the shire ( I think it was LotR, The Revenge ).
"There's something strange at work here.
Some evil drives these creatures, sets its will against us.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633552</id>
	<title>Re:Yes!!!</title>
	<author>winwar</author>
	<datestamp>1262550420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"A business doesn't want to have thousands or tens of thousands of tiny outstanding debts floating around FOREVER."</p><p>They aren't debts.  They are pieces of plastic or paper redeemable for stuff.  Already paid for by yesterdays money that MIGHT someday be redeemed by another customer.  A bankers dream.  No wonder VISA and MASTERCARD have gift cards.</p><p>"That is the main reason there are "fees" to reduce the value of the card to zero when it isn't used."</p><p>Nope.  It's so they get to earn interest AND keep the principal.  Think of it as legalized stealing.</p><p>"Think of your own checks- would you like it if someone you wrote a check to sat on it for 5 years, then cashed it at a time when you least had the ability to pay for it?"</p><p>Nope.  But perfectly legal.  And it will happen if you don't stop payment on the check.</p><p>"I don't think it is unreasonable to have some type of expiration date or balance reduction time limit on gift cards, as long as it isn't too soon."</p><p>Most people disagree.  I would agree on one condition.  If it was in really big bold print on the card rather than buried in the fine print. But it never was.</p><p>If it had been clear, gift cards would never have been popular with those conditions.  So it wasn't clear and as a result, many states prohibited the charges.  What a surprise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" A business does n't want to have thousands or tens of thousands of tiny outstanding debts floating around FOREVER .
" They are n't debts .
They are pieces of plastic or paper redeemable for stuff .
Already paid for by yesterdays money that MIGHT someday be redeemed by another customer .
A bankers dream .
No wonder VISA and MASTERCARD have gift cards .
" That is the main reason there are " fees " to reduce the value of the card to zero when it is n't used. " Nope .
It 's so they get to earn interest AND keep the principal .
Think of it as legalized stealing .
" Think of your own checks- would you like it if someone you wrote a check to sat on it for 5 years , then cashed it at a time when you least had the ability to pay for it ? " Nope .
But perfectly legal .
And it will happen if you do n't stop payment on the check .
" I do n't think it is unreasonable to have some type of expiration date or balance reduction time limit on gift cards , as long as it is n't too soon .
" Most people disagree .
I would agree on one condition .
If it was in really big bold print on the card rather than buried in the fine print .
But it never was.If it had been clear , gift cards would never have been popular with those conditions .
So it was n't clear and as a result , many states prohibited the charges .
What a surprise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A business doesn't want to have thousands or tens of thousands of tiny outstanding debts floating around FOREVER.
"They aren't debts.
They are pieces of plastic or paper redeemable for stuff.
Already paid for by yesterdays money that MIGHT someday be redeemed by another customer.
A bankers dream.
No wonder VISA and MASTERCARD have gift cards.
"That is the main reason there are "fees" to reduce the value of the card to zero when it isn't used."Nope.
It's so they get to earn interest AND keep the principal.
Think of it as legalized stealing.
"Think of your own checks- would you like it if someone you wrote a check to sat on it for 5 years, then cashed it at a time when you least had the ability to pay for it?"Nope.
But perfectly legal.
And it will happen if you don't stop payment on the check.
"I don't think it is unreasonable to have some type of expiration date or balance reduction time limit on gift cards, as long as it isn't too soon.
"Most people disagree.
I would agree on one condition.
If it was in really big bold print on the card rather than buried in the fine print.
But it never was.If it had been clear, gift cards would never have been popular with those conditions.
So it wasn't clear and as a result, many states prohibited the charges.
What a surprise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631570</id>
	<title>Re:Yes!!!</title>
	<author>ftobin</author>
	<datestamp>1262533080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As consumers, we might hate it, but you have to think of it this way... a gift card is an outstanding debt. A business doesn't want to have thousands or tens of thousands of tiny outstanding debts floating around FOREVER. That is the main reason there are "fees" to reduce the value of the card to zero when it isn't used.</p></div></blockquote><p>I agree.  I can't imagine that there would be an organization (let's call it a "knab") that if you deposited money with them, got something in return, they could manage these outstanding liabilities that you could redeem for the product at any time in the future, near or distant.  In the meantime, this fictitious knabs would be free to invest your deposit safely until you withdrew it.  Knabs would have a terrible time trying to keep track of all these accounts on their books, and couldn't possibly make money, so much so that I can't imagine a world with a knab.</p><p>Also, what's so hard about keeping track of all these inactive accounts?  It's not like they have many businesses have a hand-written ledger that they have to re-copy all account values around.  Since all the accounts are likely similar, automated processing should be able to handle the number, whether it's processing 100 or 10,000.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As consumers , we might hate it , but you have to think of it this way... a gift card is an outstanding debt .
A business does n't want to have thousands or tens of thousands of tiny outstanding debts floating around FOREVER .
That is the main reason there are " fees " to reduce the value of the card to zero when it is n't used.I agree .
I ca n't imagine that there would be an organization ( let 's call it a " knab " ) that if you deposited money with them , got something in return , they could manage these outstanding liabilities that you could redeem for the product at any time in the future , near or distant .
In the meantime , this fictitious knabs would be free to invest your deposit safely until you withdrew it .
Knabs would have a terrible time trying to keep track of all these accounts on their books , and could n't possibly make money , so much so that I ca n't imagine a world with a knab.Also , what 's so hard about keeping track of all these inactive accounts ?
It 's not like they have many businesses have a hand-written ledger that they have to re-copy all account values around .
Since all the accounts are likely similar , automated processing should be able to handle the number , whether it 's processing 100 or 10,000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As consumers, we might hate it, but you have to think of it this way... a gift card is an outstanding debt.
A business doesn't want to have thousands or tens of thousands of tiny outstanding debts floating around FOREVER.
That is the main reason there are "fees" to reduce the value of the card to zero when it isn't used.I agree.
I can't imagine that there would be an organization (let's call it a "knab") that if you deposited money with them, got something in return, they could manage these outstanding liabilities that you could redeem for the product at any time in the future, near or distant.
In the meantime, this fictitious knabs would be free to invest your deposit safely until you withdrew it.
Knabs would have a terrible time trying to keep track of all these accounts on their books, and couldn't possibly make money, so much so that I can't imagine a world with a knab.Also, what's so hard about keeping track of all these inactive accounts?
It's not like they have many businesses have a hand-written ledger that they have to re-copy all account values around.
Since all the accounts are likely similar, automated processing should be able to handle the number, whether it's processing 100 or 10,000.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30634462</id>
	<title>Re:They should never expire</title>
	<author>RobertLTux</author>
	<datestamp>1262515260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Plus there is the "Bounce Back" principle<br>Rather than try to guess sizes on that special gift you bop down to say Victorias Secret buy a gift card and then drop hints as to what to buy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Plus there is the " Bounce Back " principleRather than try to guess sizes on that special gift you bop down to say Victorias Secret buy a gift card and then drop hints as to what to buy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plus there is the "Bounce Back" principleRather than try to guess sizes on that special gift you bop down to say Victorias Secret buy a gift card and then drop hints as to what to buy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633736</id>
	<title>Re:Screw AT&amp;T</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1262552340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The company you think of as AT&amp;T is really a re-branded SBC and has only been AT&amp;T for 5 years.. They are not also the only ones who have done the merge and get bigger thing.. In souther California I was a GTE customer, they became Verizon.. then when I moved to Northern Cal I was a PacBell customer who became SBC.. then when I moved to Reno I was an SBC customer who became AT&amp;T... To tell you the truth, I think it hurts these companies to merge their different offerings under the same name.. For example, you might have a horrible experience with their mobile phones, but a better experience with their landline or DSL service.. To the consumer it's all the same company, so therefore if one sucks, they all do.. But in the company they are all run separately.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The company you think of as AT&amp;T is really a re-branded SBC and has only been AT&amp;T for 5 years.. They are not also the only ones who have done the merge and get bigger thing.. In souther California I was a GTE customer , they became Verizon.. then when I moved to Northern Cal I was a PacBell customer who became SBC.. then when I moved to Reno I was an SBC customer who became AT&amp;T... To tell you the truth , I think it hurts these companies to merge their different offerings under the same name.. For example , you might have a horrible experience with their mobile phones , but a better experience with their landline or DSL service.. To the consumer it 's all the same company , so therefore if one sucks , they all do.. But in the company they are all run separately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The company you think of as AT&amp;T is really a re-branded SBC and has only been AT&amp;T for 5 years.. They are not also the only ones who have done the merge and get bigger thing.. In souther California I was a GTE customer, they became Verizon.. then when I moved to Northern Cal I was a PacBell customer who became SBC.. then when I moved to Reno I was an SBC customer who became AT&amp;T... To tell you the truth, I think it hurts these companies to merge their different offerings under the same name.. For example, you might have a horrible experience with their mobile phones, but a better experience with their landline or DSL service.. To the consumer it's all the same company, so therefore if one sucks, they all do.. But in the company they are all run separately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633632</id>
	<title>This suit needs to fail</title>
	<author>rdean400</author>
	<datestamp>1262551260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I personally hate gift cards and calling cards, but I think this suit needs to fail for several reasons:</p><p>1) The consumers that bought the cards paid for minutes.  They did not deposit money on their cards, and minutes are not legal tender currency.</p><p>2) Many gift cards don't carry expiration dates.  If the governments do this, it will force card issuers to put an expiration date on the cards.</p><p>3) Success in this litigation will embolden other governments that are looking for ways to close budget shortfalls without doing the fiscally responsible thing and cutting wasteful spending.  Unfortunately, the first place where most governments choose to cut spending, instead of looking for waste, is in the school districts, police and fire precincts.  Threatening cuts in those services makes it easier to justify doing stupid things like this, or raising taxes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally hate gift cards and calling cards , but I think this suit needs to fail for several reasons : 1 ) The consumers that bought the cards paid for minutes .
They did not deposit money on their cards , and minutes are not legal tender currency.2 ) Many gift cards do n't carry expiration dates .
If the governments do this , it will force card issuers to put an expiration date on the cards.3 ) Success in this litigation will embolden other governments that are looking for ways to close budget shortfalls without doing the fiscally responsible thing and cutting wasteful spending .
Unfortunately , the first place where most governments choose to cut spending , instead of looking for waste , is in the school districts , police and fire precincts .
Threatening cuts in those services makes it easier to justify doing stupid things like this , or raising taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally hate gift cards and calling cards, but I think this suit needs to fail for several reasons:1) The consumers that bought the cards paid for minutes.
They did not deposit money on their cards, and minutes are not legal tender currency.2) Many gift cards don't carry expiration dates.
If the governments do this, it will force card issuers to put an expiration date on the cards.3) Success in this litigation will embolden other governments that are looking for ways to close budget shortfalls without doing the fiscally responsible thing and cutting wasteful spending.
Unfortunately, the first place where most governments choose to cut spending, instead of looking for waste, is in the school districts, police and fire precincts.
Threatening cuts in those services makes it easier to justify doing stupid things like this, or raising taxes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632872</id>
	<title>Re:They should never expire</title>
	<author>OhPlz</author>
	<datestamp>1262545320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to work in the phone card business.  We had all sorts of calling card programs.  There were promotional cards (buy three packs of diapers, get twenty minutes talk time), we had cards for telco providers to rebrand (like AT&amp;T), we had the convenience store quickie cards that were use and toss, and so on.</p><p>Most of them were use and toss.  The whole program was meant to have a certain life span, then we shut it down and finalized all the accounting on it.</p><p>We knew not all the minutes of all the cards would be used.  We would estimate how much wouldn't be, and factor that into the cost of the program.  If by some fluke, it was all used up, we would have lost money.  Instead, we'd usually be close and it would keep the cost of the minutes down as well as give us (the service provider) and the company selling the cards a useful profit.</p><p>If the states decide to take the unused time, there are huge problems.  For one, which state?  Many calling card users bought cards because they were traveling.  Is it the state where the card was sold?  Where it was most used?  Where the database is?  What if the account is replicated to many distributed databases?</p><p>If the government were to succeed with this, it would be a billing nightmare for providers, and it would raise the costs for consumers.  The industry is practically dead as it is since most people use cell phones now for roaming.  This proposal would likely kill what's left of it, making it too expensive and too burdensome for providers to run.</p><p>What's next, if I don't finish my coffee at Dunkin's, the state is going to claim a monetary value on what's left over?  If I put ten quarters in a self-serve car wash, is the government going to demand a record of how much time I actually used?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to work in the phone card business .
We had all sorts of calling card programs .
There were promotional cards ( buy three packs of diapers , get twenty minutes talk time ) , we had cards for telco providers to rebrand ( like AT&amp;T ) , we had the convenience store quickie cards that were use and toss , and so on.Most of them were use and toss .
The whole program was meant to have a certain life span , then we shut it down and finalized all the accounting on it.We knew not all the minutes of all the cards would be used .
We would estimate how much would n't be , and factor that into the cost of the program .
If by some fluke , it was all used up , we would have lost money .
Instead , we 'd usually be close and it would keep the cost of the minutes down as well as give us ( the service provider ) and the company selling the cards a useful profit.If the states decide to take the unused time , there are huge problems .
For one , which state ?
Many calling card users bought cards because they were traveling .
Is it the state where the card was sold ?
Where it was most used ?
Where the database is ?
What if the account is replicated to many distributed databases ? If the government were to succeed with this , it would be a billing nightmare for providers , and it would raise the costs for consumers .
The industry is practically dead as it is since most people use cell phones now for roaming .
This proposal would likely kill what 's left of it , making it too expensive and too burdensome for providers to run.What 's next , if I do n't finish my coffee at Dunkin 's , the state is going to claim a monetary value on what 's left over ?
If I put ten quarters in a self-serve car wash , is the government going to demand a record of how much time I actually used ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to work in the phone card business.
We had all sorts of calling card programs.
There were promotional cards (buy three packs of diapers, get twenty minutes talk time), we had cards for telco providers to rebrand (like AT&amp;T), we had the convenience store quickie cards that were use and toss, and so on.Most of them were use and toss.
The whole program was meant to have a certain life span, then we shut it down and finalized all the accounting on it.We knew not all the minutes of all the cards would be used.
We would estimate how much wouldn't be, and factor that into the cost of the program.
If by some fluke, it was all used up, we would have lost money.
Instead, we'd usually be close and it would keep the cost of the minutes down as well as give us (the service provider) and the company selling the cards a useful profit.If the states decide to take the unused time, there are huge problems.
For one, which state?
Many calling card users bought cards because they were traveling.
Is it the state where the card was sold?
Where it was most used?
Where the database is?
What if the account is replicated to many distributed databases?If the government were to succeed with this, it would be a billing nightmare for providers, and it would raise the costs for consumers.
The industry is practically dead as it is since most people use cell phones now for roaming.
This proposal would likely kill what's left of it, making it too expensive and too burdensome for providers to run.What's next, if I don't finish my coffee at Dunkin's, the state is going to claim a monetary value on what's left over?
If I put ten quarters in a self-serve car wash, is the government going to demand a record of how much time I actually used?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631430</id>
	<title>Get to the point, please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262531640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know all of us are pondering the same thing:</p><p>Does this apply to unused gamecards for WoW? Does government have the right to thousands of hours of unused WoW gametime?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know all of us are pondering the same thing : Does this apply to unused gamecards for WoW ?
Does government have the right to thousands of hours of unused WoW gametime ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know all of us are pondering the same thing:Does this apply to unused gamecards for WoW?
Does government have the right to thousands of hours of unused WoW gametime?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632212</id>
	<title>If DC can claim this, why can't the consumer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262540040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Pandoras box here is huge. Many a business model is based upon unclaimed intangibles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Pandoras box here is huge .
Many a business model is based upon unclaimed intangibles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Pandoras box here is huge.
Many a business model is based upon unclaimed intangibles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631626</id>
	<title>Big internet access bonus for the DC area</title>
	<author>jparker</author>
	<datestamp>1262533860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So anything that's unclaimed like this defaults back to the city? I wonder what they're going to do with the remainder of everyone's unclaimed, unlimited internet access each month. Did they pool the unused hours off of old AOL CDs? What about all-you-can-eat buffets? Solved DC's hunger problems right there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So anything that 's unclaimed like this defaults back to the city ?
I wonder what they 're going to do with the remainder of everyone 's unclaimed , unlimited internet access each month .
Did they pool the unused hours off of old AOL CDs ?
What about all-you-can-eat buffets ?
Solved DC 's hunger problems right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So anything that's unclaimed like this defaults back to the city?
I wonder what they're going to do with the remainder of everyone's unclaimed, unlimited internet access each month.
Did they pool the unused hours off of old AOL CDs?
What about all-you-can-eat buffets?
Solved DC's hunger problems right there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633806</id>
	<title>Re:They should never expire</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262509920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Gift cards are lame: Why not just give the gift of cash</p></div><p>Gift cards give the ILLUSION of thought. There are many practical gift-givers out there who would gift cash, but still buy gift cards instead because they are pressured into giving anything BUT cash. <br>
&nbsp; <br>Cash, as a gift, has some mysterious social stigma attached to it; however, it's quite hypocritical since those very people who enforce that stigma would almost certainly prefer cash themselves. Maybe if they'd loosen up a bit and just enjoy the gift for what it is instead of what it is supposed to be, then maybe they too, could enjoy the gift of cash and gift cards would be no more.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gift cards are lame : Why not just give the gift of cashGift cards give the ILLUSION of thought .
There are many practical gift-givers out there who would gift cash , but still buy gift cards instead because they are pressured into giving anything BUT cash .
  Cash , as a gift , has some mysterious social stigma attached to it ; however , it 's quite hypocritical since those very people who enforce that stigma would almost certainly prefer cash themselves .
Maybe if they 'd loosen up a bit and just enjoy the gift for what it is instead of what it is supposed to be , then maybe they too , could enjoy the gift of cash and gift cards would be no more .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gift cards are lame: Why not just give the gift of cashGift cards give the ILLUSION of thought.
There are many practical gift-givers out there who would gift cash, but still buy gift cards instead because they are pressured into giving anything BUT cash.
  Cash, as a gift, has some mysterious social stigma attached to it; however, it's quite hypocritical since those very people who enforce that stigma would almost certainly prefer cash themselves.
Maybe if they'd loosen up a bit and just enjoy the gift for what it is instead of what it is supposed to be, then maybe they too, could enjoy the gift of cash and gift cards would be no more.
:-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632300</id>
	<title>Re:Big internet access bonus for the DC area</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1262540880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Damn, Comcast etc. are going to hate this! Imagine all that unused bandwidth each month, under the 250GB or whatever cap. The city will be able to give free internet access to all residents with this unclaimed bandwidth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn , Comcast etc .
are going to hate this !
Imagine all that unused bandwidth each month , under the 250GB or whatever cap .
The city will be able to give free internet access to all residents with this unclaimed bandwidth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn, Comcast etc.
are going to hate this!
Imagine all that unused bandwidth each month, under the 250GB or whatever cap.
The city will be able to give free internet access to all residents with this unclaimed bandwidth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30637866</id>
	<title>Re:All your value belong to us? Nope.</title>
	<author>lpq</author>
	<datestamp>1262544960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They do this on my unclaimed minutes each month...er is that not the same?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do this on my unclaimed minutes each month...er is that not the same ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do this on my unclaimed minutes each month...er is that not the same?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631168</id>
	<title>Yes!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262527680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Finally. I HATE the way retailers are predating on consumers. I do not give gift cards because of this. Companies are stealing by devaluing cards. They have our money, interest free. The gift cards should stay valid forever. I hope the government nails them on this hard. Retroactively too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally .
I HATE the way retailers are predating on consumers .
I do not give gift cards because of this .
Companies are stealing by devaluing cards .
They have our money , interest free .
The gift cards should stay valid forever .
I hope the government nails them on this hard .
Retroactively too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally.
I HATE the way retailers are predating on consumers.
I do not give gift cards because of this.
Companies are stealing by devaluing cards.
They have our money, interest free.
The gift cards should stay valid forever.
I hope the government nails them on this hard.
Retroactively too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633902</id>
	<title>Taking the Ads Too Seriously</title>
	<author>Stormy Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1262511000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks like someone on the DC council saw one of those AT&amp;T ads with the "unused minutes mom" and thinks the company has an actual physical hoard of unused minutes somewhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like someone on the DC council saw one of those AT&amp;T ads with the " unused minutes mom " and thinks the company has an actual physical hoard of unused minutes somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like someone on the DC council saw one of those AT&amp;T ads with the "unused minutes mom" and thinks the company has an actual physical hoard of unused minutes somewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30637142</id>
	<title>And unused plan minutes too!</title>
	<author>aminorex</author>
	<datestamp>1262536200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, I pay for 1400 minutes every month, but use about 200.  D.C. should be claiming those 1200 unused minutes as well!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , I pay for 1400 minutes every month , but use about 200 .
D.C. should be claiming those 1200 unused minutes as well !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, I pay for 1400 minutes every month, but use about 200.
D.C. should be claiming those 1200 unused minutes as well!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30635688</id>
	<title>Re:They should never expire</title>
	<author>Darundal</author>
	<datestamp>1262523480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, but you can mail a check, which is redeemable for cash.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , but you can mail a check , which is redeemable for cash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, but you can mail a check, which is redeemable for cash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631148</id>
	<title>All your value belong to us? Nope.</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1262527200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is law in many places... leave a balance in a bank account and fail to respond to any correspondence or make any transactions, and that money is transferred to the government who will publish your name in a massive newspaper insert, and then give it back to you if you claim it by proving the social security number the account was under is yours, and if that times out it goes to the government to do whatever they want with it.</p><p>Gift cards in many places have taken up the retailers on "if this fee is not allowed by law" to kill off inactivity fees. You now have many years or until the store shuts its doors for good (even during a post-bankruptcy liquidation that operates under the store's name) to use that money.</p><p>So, why does AT&amp;T and the other phone companies think they can get away with voiding cards they don't hear from for three years and keeping the money? It's an unclaimed balance, and businesses aren't allowed to profit from such things in many other cases... what's the difference?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is law in many places... leave a balance in a bank account and fail to respond to any correspondence or make any transactions , and that money is transferred to the government who will publish your name in a massive newspaper insert , and then give it back to you if you claim it by proving the social security number the account was under is yours , and if that times out it goes to the government to do whatever they want with it.Gift cards in many places have taken up the retailers on " if this fee is not allowed by law " to kill off inactivity fees .
You now have many years or until the store shuts its doors for good ( even during a post-bankruptcy liquidation that operates under the store 's name ) to use that money.So , why does AT&amp;T and the other phone companies think they can get away with voiding cards they do n't hear from for three years and keeping the money ?
It 's an unclaimed balance , and businesses are n't allowed to profit from such things in many other cases... what 's the difference ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is law in many places... leave a balance in a bank account and fail to respond to any correspondence or make any transactions, and that money is transferred to the government who will publish your name in a massive newspaper insert, and then give it back to you if you claim it by proving the social security number the account was under is yours, and if that times out it goes to the government to do whatever they want with it.Gift cards in many places have taken up the retailers on "if this fee is not allowed by law" to kill off inactivity fees.
You now have many years or until the store shuts its doors for good (even during a post-bankruptcy liquidation that operates under the store's name) to use that money.So, why does AT&amp;T and the other phone companies think they can get away with voiding cards they don't hear from for three years and keeping the money?
It's an unclaimed balance, and businesses aren't allowed to profit from such things in many other cases... what's the difference?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631298</id>
	<title>Next target</title>
	<author>ebonum</author>
	<datestamp>1262529660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next week the AG will be suing "massage" parlors for unused "buy ten get a freebie" cards!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next week the AG will be suing " massage " parlors for unused " buy ten get a freebie " cards !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next week the AG will be suing "massage" parlors for unused "buy ten get a freebie" cards!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632296</id>
	<title>This is just plain stupid</title>
	<author>holophrastic</author>
	<datestamp>1262540880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't believe that your country spends resources on such stupid things.  Maybe they should think about worthwhile things, and put stuff like this lower on the list -- say below airport security.</p><p>In any event, here's why this is stupid.</p><p>First, they may be unused, but they aren't unclaimed.  You purchased a service from AT&amp;T, not property.  AT&amp;T still owns them.</p><p>Second, the whole unclaimed property when it comes to money in stale bank accounts is because money is also owned by your country.  It has to be, otherwise you could burn it and actually make your country poorer.  The mint can't just print more money.</p><p>Third, this is demented because AT&amp;T would simply have calling cards expire the day before they'd default to the government.  So this is all for nothing.</p><p>Your country spens way too much time litigating stupid shit instead of actually solving problems.  Having put into effect a dozen airline security measures as a result of last week, you'd think that one of those measures would be a good counter to last week's attack.  None of them are.  Congrats on doing nothing.  Maybe this DC general should spend effort doing something useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't believe that your country spends resources on such stupid things .
Maybe they should think about worthwhile things , and put stuff like this lower on the list -- say below airport security.In any event , here 's why this is stupid.First , they may be unused , but they are n't unclaimed .
You purchased a service from AT&amp;T , not property .
AT&amp;T still owns them.Second , the whole unclaimed property when it comes to money in stale bank accounts is because money is also owned by your country .
It has to be , otherwise you could burn it and actually make your country poorer .
The mint ca n't just print more money.Third , this is demented because AT&amp;T would simply have calling cards expire the day before they 'd default to the government .
So this is all for nothing.Your country spens way too much time litigating stupid shit instead of actually solving problems .
Having put into effect a dozen airline security measures as a result of last week , you 'd think that one of those measures would be a good counter to last week 's attack .
None of them are .
Congrats on doing nothing .
Maybe this DC general should spend effort doing something useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't believe that your country spends resources on such stupid things.
Maybe they should think about worthwhile things, and put stuff like this lower on the list -- say below airport security.In any event, here's why this is stupid.First, they may be unused, but they aren't unclaimed.
You purchased a service from AT&amp;T, not property.
AT&amp;T still owns them.Second, the whole unclaimed property when it comes to money in stale bank accounts is because money is also owned by your country.
It has to be, otherwise you could burn it and actually make your country poorer.
The mint can't just print more money.Third, this is demented because AT&amp;T would simply have calling cards expire the day before they'd default to the government.
So this is all for nothing.Your country spens way too much time litigating stupid shit instead of actually solving problems.
Having put into effect a dozen airline security measures as a result of last week, you'd think that one of those measures would be a good counter to last week's attack.
None of them are.
Congrats on doing nothing.
Maybe this DC general should spend effort doing something useful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631166</id>
	<title>Have to side with AT&amp;T on this one.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262527620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Much as I hate to do it.  I don't see how this works.  If a woman is hoping to get laid and goes to a bar and doesn't, does that mean a law-maker has the right to claim her unused nookie in the name of the people of D.C.?  The lost-and-found laws should not apply to something like this.  What next?  When you volunteer to help and no one needs your help, they can draft you and force you to work because your charity was unclaimed?  I am confident the DC guys will loose this one.  If they win, it'll be just one more article of proof that this country has lost its mind.  Also, other uses of such laws as apply to gift-card balances need to be struck down.  This is getting ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Much as I hate to do it .
I do n't see how this works .
If a woman is hoping to get laid and goes to a bar and does n't , does that mean a law-maker has the right to claim her unused nookie in the name of the people of D.C. ?
The lost-and-found laws should not apply to something like this .
What next ?
When you volunteer to help and no one needs your help , they can draft you and force you to work because your charity was unclaimed ?
I am confident the DC guys will loose this one .
If they win , it 'll be just one more article of proof that this country has lost its mind .
Also , other uses of such laws as apply to gift-card balances need to be struck down .
This is getting ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much as I hate to do it.
I don't see how this works.
If a woman is hoping to get laid and goes to a bar and doesn't, does that mean a law-maker has the right to claim her unused nookie in the name of the people of D.C.?
The lost-and-found laws should not apply to something like this.
What next?
When you volunteer to help and no one needs your help, they can draft you and force you to work because your charity was unclaimed?
I am confident the DC guys will loose this one.
If they win, it'll be just one more article of proof that this country has lost its mind.
Also, other uses of such laws as apply to gift-card balances need to be struck down.
This is getting ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632476</id>
	<title>I think this is different than gift cards</title>
	<author>Antony-Kyre</author>
	<datestamp>1262542680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will depend on the state when it comes to gift cards. But, unusued phone minutes?</p><p>Won't it devalue the profit the phone company is making off of them? Think about it. The phone company sells these minutes knowing a certain percentage will probably expire. And I assume it's not 100\% profit for the phone company when they sell these minutes. So, won't they adjust the price knowing 100\% of all the minutes sold will end up used?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will depend on the state when it comes to gift cards .
But , unusued phone minutes ? Wo n't it devalue the profit the phone company is making off of them ?
Think about it .
The phone company sells these minutes knowing a certain percentage will probably expire .
And I assume it 's not 100 \ % profit for the phone company when they sell these minutes .
So , wo n't they adjust the price knowing 100 \ % of all the minutes sold will end up used ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will depend on the state when it comes to gift cards.
But, unusued phone minutes?Won't it devalue the profit the phone company is making off of them?
Think about it.
The phone company sells these minutes knowing a certain percentage will probably expire.
And I assume it's not 100\% profit for the phone company when they sell these minutes.
So, won't they adjust the price knowing 100\% of all the minutes sold will end up used?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632588</id>
	<title>Dear Washington DC</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1262543460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I admit that I am a "deadbeat". I have some rather large, unclaimed and unpaid debts that are over 3 years old. Please let me know when you wish to take those over from me. Thanks...</p><p>Oh wait, how come it's different suddenly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I admit that I am a " deadbeat " .
I have some rather large , unclaimed and unpaid debts that are over 3 years old .
Please let me know when you wish to take those over from me .
Thanks...Oh wait , how come it 's different suddenly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I admit that I am a "deadbeat".
I have some rather large, unclaimed and unpaid debts that are over 3 years old.
Please let me know when you wish to take those over from me.
Thanks...Oh wait, how come it's different suddenly?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633298</id>
	<title>My Rights</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1262547780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have the right to any tax dollars unused by the years end.<br>I have the right to any unused dinners and reservations wasted by D.C. politicos.<br>I have the right to any call girls paid who were unused because of erectile dysfunction of Senate,Congress and Cabinet.<br>I have the right to do the unused trophy wives as well.<br>I have the right to any liquor they have unused by years end.<br>Don't forget I get all your unused minutes too.<br>So clear the way, myself and a legion of  well armed lawyers will be overtaking D.C. next month because<br>'I also claim any unused votes and I'm gonna be runnin' the whole f**kin' show. They haven't been running it for several administrations.<br>So warm up and sing "Hail to the Chief" , President Fly N. Eye is comin' to town.<br>Get ol Kennedy and Hillary bent over and greased up , cuz I'm gonna use them too.<br>I can pimp the whole bunch just to lower and eventually eliminate taxes.<br>I claim the right. Get over it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have the right to any tax dollars unused by the years end.I have the right to any unused dinners and reservations wasted by D.C. politicos.I have the right to any call girls paid who were unused because of erectile dysfunction of Senate,Congress and Cabinet.I have the right to do the unused trophy wives as well.I have the right to any liquor they have unused by years end.Do n't forget I get all your unused minutes too.So clear the way , myself and a legion of well armed lawyers will be overtaking D.C. next month because'I also claim any unused votes and I 'm gon na be runnin ' the whole f * * kin ' show .
They have n't been running it for several administrations.So warm up and sing " Hail to the Chief " , President Fly N. Eye is comin ' to town.Get ol Kennedy and Hillary bent over and greased up , cuz I 'm gon na use them too.I can pimp the whole bunch just to lower and eventually eliminate taxes.I claim the right .
Get over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have the right to any tax dollars unused by the years end.I have the right to any unused dinners and reservations wasted by D.C. politicos.I have the right to any call girls paid who were unused because of erectile dysfunction of Senate,Congress and Cabinet.I have the right to do the unused trophy wives as well.I have the right to any liquor they have unused by years end.Don't forget I get all your unused minutes too.So clear the way, myself and a legion of  well armed lawyers will be overtaking D.C. next month because'I also claim any unused votes and I'm gonna be runnin' the whole f**kin' show.
They haven't been running it for several administrations.So warm up and sing "Hail to the Chief" , President Fly N. Eye is comin' to town.Get ol Kennedy and Hillary bent over and greased up , cuz I'm gonna use them too.I can pimp the whole bunch just to lower and eventually eliminate taxes.I claim the right.
Get over it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631334</id>
	<title>Level playing field</title>
	<author>tp\_xyzzy</author>
	<datestamp>1262530440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This action sounds like they're trying to prevent at&amp;t to get unfair advantage over selling stuffs they have no intention to provide service for. They probably bundled minutes with some product and most of their customers payed for the service, but never intended to use it. So at&amp;t got unfair compensation for selling bogus service.</p><p>If practises like this are not removed, the market will be full of gift cards and calling cards, with most of the people's money going to something they're not going to use. It sounds pretty good principle that when money changes hands, there is equivalent service or valuable stuff going the other way. Bogus services where this is not true should be removed from the marketplace. Guess unused calling cards have this kind of thing that money moves but service does not. At&amp;t's competitors who do not have similar practices will be in disadvantage for not scamming their customers.</p><p>So sounds like very reasonable action by the government. At least if they already have laws they can use for it! (they didn't invent the law just for this at&amp;t's case<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This action sounds like they 're trying to prevent at&amp;t to get unfair advantage over selling stuffs they have no intention to provide service for .
They probably bundled minutes with some product and most of their customers payed for the service , but never intended to use it .
So at&amp;t got unfair compensation for selling bogus service.If practises like this are not removed , the market will be full of gift cards and calling cards , with most of the people 's money going to something they 're not going to use .
It sounds pretty good principle that when money changes hands , there is equivalent service or valuable stuff going the other way .
Bogus services where this is not true should be removed from the marketplace .
Guess unused calling cards have this kind of thing that money moves but service does not .
At&amp;t 's competitors who do not have similar practices will be in disadvantage for not scamming their customers.So sounds like very reasonable action by the government .
At least if they already have laws they can use for it !
( they did n't invent the law just for this at&amp;t 's case : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This action sounds like they're trying to prevent at&amp;t to get unfair advantage over selling stuffs they have no intention to provide service for.
They probably bundled minutes with some product and most of their customers payed for the service, but never intended to use it.
So at&amp;t got unfair compensation for selling bogus service.If practises like this are not removed, the market will be full of gift cards and calling cards, with most of the people's money going to something they're not going to use.
It sounds pretty good principle that when money changes hands, there is equivalent service or valuable stuff going the other way.
Bogus services where this is not true should be removed from the marketplace.
Guess unused calling cards have this kind of thing that money moves but service does not.
At&amp;t's competitors who do not have similar practices will be in disadvantage for not scamming their customers.So sounds like very reasonable action by the government.
At least if they already have laws they can use for it!
(they didn't invent the law just for this at&amp;t's case :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633574</id>
	<title>Re:They should never expire</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262550600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I think phone cards are probably a lot more than one row in a database, and the records probably persist a lot longer than the card. It may be almost as much data as having a regular old monthly-paid phone account. (All the same timestamp and duration and possibly destination phone number info, except it's being "billed" to the card's account instead of a person). Likewise they probably keep a lot of data on the gift card usage too. The use patterns are both kinds of cards are probably used, at the very least, as some of the input to their pricing decisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I think phone cards are probably a lot more than one row in a database , and the records probably persist a lot longer than the card .
It may be almost as much data as having a regular old monthly-paid phone account .
( All the same timestamp and duration and possibly destination phone number info , except it 's being " billed " to the card 's account instead of a person ) .
Likewise they probably keep a lot of data on the gift card usage too .
The use patterns are both kinds of cards are probably used , at the very least , as some of the input to their pricing decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I think phone cards are probably a lot more than one row in a database, and the records probably persist a lot longer than the card.
It may be almost as much data as having a regular old monthly-paid phone account.
(All the same timestamp and duration and possibly destination phone number info, except it's being "billed" to the card's account instead of a person).
Likewise they probably keep a lot of data on the gift card usage too.
The use patterns are both kinds of cards are probably used, at the very least, as some of the input to their pricing decisions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633778</id>
	<title>Re:Yes!!!</title>
	<author>markdavis</author>
	<datestamp>1262509620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, that is just not true as a blanket statement.  If a check has an expiration date printed on it, then it does, indeed, expire.  However, if it is not printed on the check, then you are right- it is pretty open ended and nebulous at that point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , that is just not true as a blanket statement .
If a check has an expiration date printed on it , then it does , indeed , expire .
However , if it is not printed on the check , then you are right- it is pretty open ended and nebulous at that point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, that is just not true as a blanket statement.
If a check has an expiration date printed on it, then it does, indeed, expire.
However, if it is not printed on the check, then you are right- it is pretty open ended and nebulous at that point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631606</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632892</id>
	<title>Re:This is just plain stupid</title>
	<author>Stanislav\_J</author>
	<datestamp>1262545440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Your country spends way too much time litigating stupid shit instead of actually solving problems.</p></div><p>Hey, you have to go with whatever talents you have. We happen to be very good at litigating stupid shit, thank you. Actually solving problems, not so much....besides being a lot harder, it might actually reduce the amount of stupid shit available to litigate. Then where would we be? Who's going to pay to retrain all those out of work Stupid Shit Litigators? We might get desperate and have to import other countries' stupid shit to litigate. What would that do to our balance of trade?</p><p>Clearly, you just do not understand how America works...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your country spends way too much time litigating stupid shit instead of actually solving problems.Hey , you have to go with whatever talents you have .
We happen to be very good at litigating stupid shit , thank you .
Actually solving problems , not so much....besides being a lot harder , it might actually reduce the amount of stupid shit available to litigate .
Then where would we be ?
Who 's going to pay to retrain all those out of work Stupid Shit Litigators ?
We might get desperate and have to import other countries ' stupid shit to litigate .
What would that do to our balance of trade ? Clearly , you just do not understand how America works.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your country spends way too much time litigating stupid shit instead of actually solving problems.Hey, you have to go with whatever talents you have.
We happen to be very good at litigating stupid shit, thank you.
Actually solving problems, not so much....besides being a lot harder, it might actually reduce the amount of stupid shit available to litigate.
Then where would we be?
Who's going to pay to retrain all those out of work Stupid Shit Litigators?
We might get desperate and have to import other countries' stupid shit to litigate.
What would that do to our balance of trade?Clearly, you just do not understand how America works...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631632</id>
	<title>Cash out</title>
	<author>p51d007</author>
	<datestamp>1262533920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anytime I get one of those stupid "rebate cards" after a phone purchase, I keep it til the first of the month, and pay part or all of a bill with it.  I know there are probably a lot of people who leave a few dollars on the card that the companies who issue the cards hope never gets spent.  Free money for the companies that issue them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anytime I get one of those stupid " rebate cards " after a phone purchase , I keep it til the first of the month , and pay part or all of a bill with it .
I know there are probably a lot of people who leave a few dollars on the card that the companies who issue the cards hope never gets spent .
Free money for the companies that issue them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anytime I get one of those stupid "rebate cards" after a phone purchase, I keep it til the first of the month, and pay part or all of a bill with it.
I know there are probably a lot of people who leave a few dollars on the card that the companies who issue the cards hope never gets spent.
Free money for the companies that issue them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631736</id>
	<title>Re:Yes!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262534940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The outstanding gift card balances are basically loans at 0\%, companies don't mind having outstanding balances at all.  In fact they want it.</p><p>Companies probably invest portions of the balances in Government Bonds and such and see a return on the essentially free loan.  You hold reserves for current redemptions, and use short term investment tools so the money is still liquid.  Any interest is Free Money.  Use a 3rd party processor for admin and give them a slice of the free money, and now you don't even have to administer the operation (someone would have to manage the free money machine, but that's what Finance is for).  Free Money!</p><p>Of course the company could use the unpaid balances as pure capital if the obligation to the customer went away.  Sounds like stealing to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The outstanding gift card balances are basically loans at 0 \ % , companies do n't mind having outstanding balances at all .
In fact they want it.Companies probably invest portions of the balances in Government Bonds and such and see a return on the essentially free loan .
You hold reserves for current redemptions , and use short term investment tools so the money is still liquid .
Any interest is Free Money .
Use a 3rd party processor for admin and give them a slice of the free money , and now you do n't even have to administer the operation ( someone would have to manage the free money machine , but that 's what Finance is for ) .
Free Money ! Of course the company could use the unpaid balances as pure capital if the obligation to the customer went away .
Sounds like stealing to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The outstanding gift card balances are basically loans at 0\%, companies don't mind having outstanding balances at all.
In fact they want it.Companies probably invest portions of the balances in Government Bonds and such and see a return on the essentially free loan.
You hold reserves for current redemptions, and use short term investment tools so the money is still liquid.
Any interest is Free Money.
Use a 3rd party processor for admin and give them a slice of the free money, and now you don't even have to administer the operation (someone would have to manage the free money machine, but that's what Finance is for).
Free Money!Of course the company could use the unpaid balances as pure capital if the obligation to the customer went away.
Sounds like stealing to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632402</id>
	<title>well...</title>
	<author>WeeBit</author>
	<datestamp>1262541840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This probably has a lot to do with the economy right now.  Many cities are hurting, so they will tap anything to get that extra dollar so they can keep their city afloat. Cities are always hurt the most when the economy is sour. Case in point less taxes coming in on properties.  DC has a lot more too loose.  Government presence is everywhere two fold.  Low officials, high officials, foreign, and domestic.    They can't cut back city crews to save money. In the past they relied more on Federal Government to pick up where they could not.  But even the Federal presence can only do so much. So they have to get creative getting that money flowing in.  I bet many other cities are watching how this case turns out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This probably has a lot to do with the economy right now .
Many cities are hurting , so they will tap anything to get that extra dollar so they can keep their city afloat .
Cities are always hurt the most when the economy is sour .
Case in point less taxes coming in on properties .
DC has a lot more too loose .
Government presence is everywhere two fold .
Low officials , high officials , foreign , and domestic .
They ca n't cut back city crews to save money .
In the past they relied more on Federal Government to pick up where they could not .
But even the Federal presence can only do so much .
So they have to get creative getting that money flowing in .
I bet many other cities are watching how this case turns out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This probably has a lot to do with the economy right now.
Many cities are hurting, so they will tap anything to get that extra dollar so they can keep their city afloat.
Cities are always hurt the most when the economy is sour.
Case in point less taxes coming in on properties.
DC has a lot more too loose.
Government presence is everywhere two fold.
Low officials, high officials, foreign, and domestic.
They can't cut back city crews to save money.
In the past they relied more on Federal Government to pick up where they could not.
But even the Federal presence can only do so much.
So they have to get creative getting that money flowing in.
I bet many other cities are watching how this case turns out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631956</id>
	<title>The government is evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262537280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government is an evil entity, created by satan's liberals to hurt and destroy all the good little libertarian children who don't share their toys.  It is said that in the far far future, there will one day be a savior who will come down and destroy the evil government and in its place establish a perfect society that will favor commerce over taxation and liberty over tyranny.  In this we believe.  Lord Rand hear our prayer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government is an evil entity , created by satan 's liberals to hurt and destroy all the good little libertarian children who do n't share their toys .
It is said that in the far far future , there will one day be a savior who will come down and destroy the evil government and in its place establish a perfect society that will favor commerce over taxation and liberty over tyranny .
In this we believe .
Lord Rand hear our prayer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government is an evil entity, created by satan's liberals to hurt and destroy all the good little libertarian children who don't share their toys.
It is said that in the far far future, there will one day be a savior who will come down and destroy the evil government and in its place establish a perfect society that will favor commerce over taxation and liberty over tyranny.
In this we believe.
Lord Rand hear our prayer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632172</id>
	<title>Re:They should never expire</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1262539680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not just give the gift of cash</p></div><p>You can't mail cash.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just give the gift of cashYou ca n't mail cash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just give the gift of cashYou can't mail cash.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632050</id>
	<title>Corp v. Govt?  Bottom Line: You Lose</title>
	<author>tonymus</author>
	<datestamp>1262538420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is another reason for governments to escheat funds that I haven't seen posted.  It is a fact that governments make a tidy sum of money off of these transactions, as many escheated funds are never claimed.  For some governments, it is a material source of revenues.</p><p>For that reason, governments are not aggressive in alerting taxpayers that they are holding their funds.  Some US states have an on line mechanism for submitting a claim, and most government put a legal notice in a paper once a year, but the actual process to secure such funds tends to be complex (due to security concerns) and lengthy (because we're dealing with the government, after all).</p><p>I personally see it as a fight between two entities (the corporate world v. the government), neither of which is thrilled about giving you your money back...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is another reason for governments to escheat funds that I have n't seen posted .
It is a fact that governments make a tidy sum of money off of these transactions , as many escheated funds are never claimed .
For some governments , it is a material source of revenues.For that reason , governments are not aggressive in alerting taxpayers that they are holding their funds .
Some US states have an on line mechanism for submitting a claim , and most government put a legal notice in a paper once a year , but the actual process to secure such funds tends to be complex ( due to security concerns ) and lengthy ( because we 're dealing with the government , after all ) .I personally see it as a fight between two entities ( the corporate world v. the government ) , neither of which is thrilled about giving you your money back.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is another reason for governments to escheat funds that I haven't seen posted.
It is a fact that governments make a tidy sum of money off of these transactions, as many escheated funds are never claimed.
For some governments, it is a material source of revenues.For that reason, governments are not aggressive in alerting taxpayers that they are holding their funds.
Some US states have an on line mechanism for submitting a claim, and most government put a legal notice in a paper once a year, but the actual process to secure such funds tends to be complex (due to security concerns) and lengthy (because we're dealing with the government, after all).I personally see it as a fight between two entities (the corporate world v. the government), neither of which is thrilled about giving you your money back...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631770</id>
	<title>Re:Big internet access bonus for the DC area</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262535300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>They already keep unused time on parking meters. I'd like some  way of reclaiming that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They already keep unused time on parking meters .
I 'd like some way of reclaiming that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They already keep unused time on parking meters.
I'd like some  way of reclaiming that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631626</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631284</id>
	<title>Re:Yes!!!</title>
	<author>parodyca</author>
	<datestamp>1262529420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think it is unreasonable to have some type of expiration date or balance reduction time limit on gift cards, as long as it isn't too soon.</p></div><p>They already do. It's called inflation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it is unreasonable to have some type of expiration date or balance reduction time limit on gift cards , as long as it is n't too soon.They already do .
It 's called inflation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it is unreasonable to have some type of expiration date or balance reduction time limit on gift cards, as long as it isn't too soon.They already do.
It's called inflation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632342</id>
	<title>Re:Yes!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262541300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a more practical reason to avoid giving gift cards - they are wildly less practical than cash:</p><ul> <li>I've run into vendors that don't accept them at all.</li><li>If I return a purchase made on a gift card, vendors cannot give me a refund.</li><li>Managing the leftover balance is really annoying.  I recently spent $28 of a $30 gift card.  I now have so little left that it's under the limit of what most vendors will permit on a card transaction.  Wasted money.</li></ul><p>In all cases I can think of, cash is a superior gift if you want to give someone money.  Give up the illusion that a gift card is somehow classier or shows that you put more thought into it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a more practical reason to avoid giving gift cards - they are wildly less practical than cash : I 've run into vendors that do n't accept them at all.If I return a purchase made on a gift card , vendors can not give me a refund.Managing the leftover balance is really annoying .
I recently spent $ 28 of a $ 30 gift card .
I now have so little left that it 's under the limit of what most vendors will permit on a card transaction .
Wasted money.In all cases I can think of , cash is a superior gift if you want to give someone money .
Give up the illusion that a gift card is somehow classier or shows that you put more thought into it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a more practical reason to avoid giving gift cards - they are wildly less practical than cash: I've run into vendors that don't accept them at all.If I return a purchase made on a gift card, vendors cannot give me a refund.Managing the leftover balance is really annoying.
I recently spent $28 of a $30 gift card.
I now have so little left that it's under the limit of what most vendors will permit on a card transaction.
Wasted money.In all cases I can think of, cash is a superior gift if you want to give someone money.
Give up the illusion that a gift card is somehow classier or shows that you put more thought into it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631238</id>
	<title>Re:Yes!!!</title>
	<author>markdavis</author>
	<datestamp>1262528520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As consumers, we might hate it, but you have to think of it this way...  a gift card is an outstanding debt.  A business doesn't want to have thousands or tens of thousands of tiny outstanding debts floating around FOREVER.  That is the main reason there are "fees" to reduce the value of the card to zero when it isn't used.</p><p>It is the same idea as having checks expire after 180 days.  If someone doesn't cash the check, it can't just sit out there "forever".  The business needs to write off that debt so they can clean up their books.  Otherwise, someone could come back 10 years later and cash it.  Think of your own checks- would you like it if someone you wrote a check to sat on it for 5 years, then cashed it at a time when you least had the ability to pay for it?</p><p>I don't think it is unreasonable to have some type of expiration date or balance reduction time limit on gift cards, as long as it isn't too soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As consumers , we might hate it , but you have to think of it this way... a gift card is an outstanding debt .
A business does n't want to have thousands or tens of thousands of tiny outstanding debts floating around FOREVER .
That is the main reason there are " fees " to reduce the value of the card to zero when it is n't used.It is the same idea as having checks expire after 180 days .
If someone does n't cash the check , it ca n't just sit out there " forever " .
The business needs to write off that debt so they can clean up their books .
Otherwise , someone could come back 10 years later and cash it .
Think of your own checks- would you like it if someone you wrote a check to sat on it for 5 years , then cashed it at a time when you least had the ability to pay for it ? I do n't think it is unreasonable to have some type of expiration date or balance reduction time limit on gift cards , as long as it is n't too soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As consumers, we might hate it, but you have to think of it this way...  a gift card is an outstanding debt.
A business doesn't want to have thousands or tens of thousands of tiny outstanding debts floating around FOREVER.
That is the main reason there are "fees" to reduce the value of the card to zero when it isn't used.It is the same idea as having checks expire after 180 days.
If someone doesn't cash the check, it can't just sit out there "forever".
The business needs to write off that debt so they can clean up their books.
Otherwise, someone could come back 10 years later and cash it.
Think of your own checks- would you like it if someone you wrote a check to sat on it for 5 years, then cashed it at a time when you least had the ability to pay for it?I don't think it is unreasonable to have some type of expiration date or balance reduction time limit on gift cards, as long as it isn't too soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30635730</id>
	<title>I wish they would do this for rebates.</title>
	<author>hellop2</author>
	<datestamp>1262523900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The whole rebate system on purchases is the type of scam that our politicians should be working on.  Have you ever bought something on newegg and either didn't send in the rebate within 30 days, or you sent in the rebate and never got the money back?<br> <br>

It seems like rebates would constitute an unused balance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole rebate system on purchases is the type of scam that our politicians should be working on .
Have you ever bought something on newegg and either did n't send in the rebate within 30 days , or you sent in the rebate and never got the money back ?
It seems like rebates would constitute an unused balance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole rebate system on purchases is the type of scam that our politicians should be working on.
Have you ever bought something on newegg and either didn't send in the rebate within 30 days, or you sent in the rebate and never got the money back?
It seems like rebates would constitute an unused balance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631538</id>
	<title>Re:They should never expire</title>
	<author>mrsurb</author>
	<datestamp>1262532720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gift cards are worse than lame - they convert cash that is thoroughly liquid into cash that is only available to spend at particular stores - and those stores are always the big chains. So the big chains get money up front for goods that will eventually be bought, goods that can often be found cheaper elsewhere (especially online).

</p><p>Furthermore, when you spend the gift card, the value of the purchase will never equal the value on the card. So you either get goods under the value of the card and waste the rest (which eventually goes to the store), or you end up forking over your own cash to make up the difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gift cards are worse than lame - they convert cash that is thoroughly liquid into cash that is only available to spend at particular stores - and those stores are always the big chains .
So the big chains get money up front for goods that will eventually be bought , goods that can often be found cheaper elsewhere ( especially online ) .
Furthermore , when you spend the gift card , the value of the purchase will never equal the value on the card .
So you either get goods under the value of the card and waste the rest ( which eventually goes to the store ) , or you end up forking over your own cash to make up the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gift cards are worse than lame - they convert cash that is thoroughly liquid into cash that is only available to spend at particular stores - and those stores are always the big chains.
So the big chains get money up front for goods that will eventually be bought, goods that can often be found cheaper elsewhere (especially online).
Furthermore, when you spend the gift card, the value of the purchase will never equal the value on the card.
So you either get goods under the value of the card and waste the rest (which eventually goes to the store), or you end up forking over your own cash to make up the difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30637184</id>
	<title>Re:They should never expire</title>
	<author>tombeard</author>
	<datestamp>1262536560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I forget which comic said "Gift cards, just as thoughtless as cash but not as convenient"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I forget which comic said " Gift cards , just as thoughtless as cash but not as convenient "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I forget which comic said "Gift cards, just as thoughtless as cash but not as convenient"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632410</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633748</id>
	<title>How about rebates?</title>
	<author>John Jorsett</author>
	<datestamp>1262509200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've wondered how long it was going to be before states start applying escheat or unclaimed property laws to unclaimed mail-in rebates that seem to infest the retail electronics business. For governments facing massive deficits, there's a lot of money sitting there, smiling provocatively.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've wondered how long it was going to be before states start applying escheat or unclaimed property laws to unclaimed mail-in rebates that seem to infest the retail electronics business .
For governments facing massive deficits , there 's a lot of money sitting there , smiling provocatively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've wondered how long it was going to be before states start applying escheat or unclaimed property laws to unclaimed mail-in rebates that seem to infest the retail electronics business.
For governments facing massive deficits, there's a lot of money sitting there, smiling provocatively.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30637918</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Washington DC</title>
	<author>Burning1</author>
	<datestamp>1262546100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember that debt has value, just like cash has value. There are situations where debt may be transferred between agencies (collections is an obvious example,) permitting other entities to collect on the debt.</p><p>Personally, I'm not sure I'd want the government tracking me down to collect. Based on the stories I've heard, they seem to be pretty good at it (See IRS.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember that debt has value , just like cash has value .
There are situations where debt may be transferred between agencies ( collections is an obvious example , ) permitting other entities to collect on the debt.Personally , I 'm not sure I 'd want the government tracking me down to collect .
Based on the stories I 've heard , they seem to be pretty good at it ( See IRS .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember that debt has value, just like cash has value.
There are situations where debt may be transferred between agencies (collections is an obvious example,) permitting other entities to collect on the debt.Personally, I'm not sure I'd want the government tracking me down to collect.
Based on the stories I've heard, they seem to be pretty good at it (See IRS.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632588</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633294</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Washington DC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262547780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is your name Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is your name Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is your name Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632588</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30634220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30637184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30637918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30638100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30635688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30634462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30637866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0631237_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0631237.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0631237.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633552
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631594
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30634220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631606
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633778
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0631237.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631538
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632410
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30634462
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30637184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30635688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0631237.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0631237.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30637918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0631237.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0631237.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30637866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631804
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0631237.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0631237.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30638100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0631237.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30631352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30633736
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0631237.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0631237.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0631237.30632892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
