<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_02_1642207</id>
	<title>And Now, the Animated News</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1265139540000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"'You have a lot of missing images, in the TV, in the news reporting,' explains billionaire Jimmy Lai. <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/01/30/taiwan.animated.news/">It's a gap that Lai's Next Media intends to fill with its animated news service</a>. Artists lift details from news photos while actors in motion sensor suits re-create action sequences of stories making headlines. Animators graft cartoon avatars to the live-motion action, and the stories hit the Web. When news agencies didn't have footage of scenes from the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV85rD0gfqo">Tiger Woods car crash</a>, Lai's team raced to put together animation dramatizing the incident that became a YouTube sensation. Thus far, Lai has been denied a television license, but with or without his own station, he thinks his animations are headed for televisions worldwide. His company is currently in talks with media organizations to churn out news animations on demand using Next Media's graphic artists and software tools."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " 'You have a lot of missing images , in the TV , in the news reporting, ' explains billionaire Jimmy Lai .
It 's a gap that Lai 's Next Media intends to fill with its animated news service .
Artists lift details from news photos while actors in motion sensor suits re-create action sequences of stories making headlines .
Animators graft cartoon avatars to the live-motion action , and the stories hit the Web .
When news agencies did n't have footage of scenes from the Tiger Woods car crash , Lai 's team raced to put together animation dramatizing the incident that became a YouTube sensation .
Thus far , Lai has been denied a television license , but with or without his own station , he thinks his animations are headed for televisions worldwide .
His company is currently in talks with media organizations to churn out news animations on demand using Next Media 's graphic artists and software tools .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "'You have a lot of missing images, in the TV, in the news reporting,' explains billionaire Jimmy Lai.
It's a gap that Lai's Next Media intends to fill with its animated news service.
Artists lift details from news photos while actors in motion sensor suits re-create action sequences of stories making headlines.
Animators graft cartoon avatars to the live-motion action, and the stories hit the Web.
When news agencies didn't have footage of scenes from the Tiger Woods car crash, Lai's team raced to put together animation dramatizing the incident that became a YouTube sensation.
Thus far, Lai has been denied a television license, but with or without his own station, he thinks his animations are headed for televisions worldwide.
His company is currently in talks with media organizations to churn out news animations on demand using Next Media's graphic artists and software tools.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000504</id>
	<title>Re:Just what modern news needs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265102160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you kidding? Fox will jump on this like an ugly centipede.</p><p>Sean Hannity: Some people are saying that Mr. Obama makes obeisance to Mecca every night and kisses a picture of bin Laden. We are not saying that we agree with that, but here is a vivid recreation of what that would look like if it were true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you kidding ?
Fox will jump on this like an ugly centipede.Sean Hannity : Some people are saying that Mr. Obama makes obeisance to Mecca every night and kisses a picture of bin Laden .
We are not saying that we agree with that , but here is a vivid recreation of what that would look like if it were true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you kidding?
Fox will jump on this like an ugly centipede.Sean Hannity: Some people are saying that Mr. Obama makes obeisance to Mecca every night and kisses a picture of bin Laden.
We are not saying that we agree with that, but here is a vivid recreation of what that would look like if it were true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31003660</id>
	<title>We've seen this before</title>
	<author>SoundGuyNoise</author>
	<datestamp>1265118660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>when it was called "The Running Man."<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...aaaaand activate traveling matte.</htmltext>
<tokenext>when it was called " The Running Man .
" ...aaaaand activate traveling matte .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when it was called "The Running Man.
"  ...aaaaand activate traveling matte.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000260</id>
	<title>Re:Just what modern news needs</title>
	<author>hitnrunrambler</author>
	<datestamp>1265144280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, mine too. My second thought is "Fox news won't get it"</p><p>I picture Rupert Murdoch yelling: "Someone hire that camera man for me! He's phenomenal! He gets everything! Stupid CNN doesn't know what they've got, look at the lousy equipment they give him, everything looks like cartoons."</p><p>and Glenn Beck shouting: "See! See! They're making this up. How do we known their 'Obama' really exists?"</p><p>{ Pardon the double-post, browsing past the first one just looks like I'm saying "dur-hur me too!". I prefer to be seen as in idiot for the proper reasons, not because of the way slashdot blurbs me. }</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , mine too .
My second thought is " Fox news wo n't get it " I picture Rupert Murdoch yelling : " Someone hire that camera man for me !
He 's phenomenal !
He gets everything !
Stupid CNN does n't know what they 've got , look at the lousy equipment they give him , everything looks like cartoons .
" and Glenn Beck shouting : " See !
See ! They 're making this up .
How do we known their 'Obama ' really exists ?
" { Pardon the double-post , browsing past the first one just looks like I 'm saying " dur-hur me too ! " .
I prefer to be seen as in idiot for the proper reasons , not because of the way slashdot blurbs me .
}</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, mine too.
My second thought is "Fox news won't get it"I picture Rupert Murdoch yelling: "Someone hire that camera man for me!
He's phenomenal!
He gets everything!
Stupid CNN doesn't know what they've got, look at the lousy equipment they give him, everything looks like cartoons.
"and Glenn Beck shouting: "See!
See! They're making this up.
How do we known their 'Obama' really exists?
"{ Pardon the double-post, browsing past the first one just looks like I'm saying "dur-hur me too!".
I prefer to be seen as in idiot for the proper reasons, not because of the way slashdot blurbs me.
}</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31014380</id>
	<title>Re:Just what modern news needs</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264930140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly my though when I read this.</p><p>As if they would need even more possibilities to plain out lie to the people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly my though when I read this.As if they would need even more possibilities to plain out lie to the people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly my though when I read this.As if they would need even more possibilities to plain out lie to the people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000504</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000274</id>
	<title>interpreting the news</title>
	<author>WarlockSquire</author>
	<datestamp>1265144340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not news, it's news branded entertainment!<br>(or is that entertainment branded news?)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...not that we are aren't knee deep already... but, seriously?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not news , it 's news branded entertainment !
( or is that entertainment branded news ?
) ...not that we are are n't knee deep already... but , seriously ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not news, it's news branded entertainment!
(or is that entertainment branded news?
) ...not that we are aren't knee deep already... but, seriously?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000378</id>
	<title>Naked News</title>
	<author>mi</author>
	<datestamp>1265101680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If, for whatever reason, it will ever begins to matter to me, <em>who</em> delivers the news, rather than <em>what</em> the news is, I'll pick the <a href="http://nakednews.com/" title="nakednews.com">Naked News</a> [nakednews.com] over anything "animated", thank you very much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If , for whatever reason , it will ever begins to matter to me , who delivers the news , rather than what the news is , I 'll pick the Naked News [ nakednews.com ] over anything " animated " , thank you very much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If, for whatever reason, it will ever begins to matter to me, who delivers the news, rather than what the news is, I'll pick the Naked News [nakednews.com] over anything "animated", thank you very much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000368</id>
	<title>Family guy...</title>
	<author>jjoelc</author>
	<datestamp>1265101620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CraiBI5hqkk" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">...Using state of the art technology...</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>This is what it would have looked like if the plane had crashed into a school building full of bunny rabbit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Using state of the art technology... [ youtube.com ] This is what it would have looked like if the plane had crashed into a school building full of bunny rabbit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Using state of the art technology... [youtube.com]This is what it would have looked like if the plane had crashed into a school building full of bunny rabbit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000580</id>
	<title>Re:interesting, but dangerous?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265102520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aren't we used to seeing reenactments using live actors? This is just taking it one step forward, offering a faster, more affordable service. I say give them some time to improve the facial animations (I'm thinking <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLiX5d3rC6o" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLiX5d3rC6o</a> [youtube.com] ) and it'll really take off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't we used to seeing reenactments using live actors ?
This is just taking it one step forward , offering a faster , more affordable service .
I say give them some time to improve the facial animations ( I 'm thinking http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = bLiX5d3rC6o [ youtube.com ] ) and it 'll really take off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't we used to seeing reenactments using live actors?
This is just taking it one step forward, offering a faster, more affordable service.
I say give them some time to improve the facial animations (I'm thinking http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLiX5d3rC6o [youtube.com] ) and it'll really take off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000534</id>
	<title>Fox</title>
	<author>YesDinosaursDidExist</author>
	<datestamp>1265102280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fox News will be your first customer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fox News will be your first customer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fox News will be your first customer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31001256</id>
	<title>Re:Tiger woods played by Kermit the frog</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265105580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Miss Piggy?  Not even close.  Elin is HOT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Miss Piggy ?
Not even close .
Elin is HOT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Miss Piggy?
Not even close.
Elin is HOT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000426</id>
	<title>And cue the pyramid in 3...2...1...</title>
	<author>wickerprints</author>
	<datestamp>1265101860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember "A Current Affair?"  Tabloid TV at its nadir.  Apparently, this guy is trying to sink even lower.  He didn't get the memo that this sort of thing was so "been there, done that" two decades ago.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A\_Current\_Affair\_(U.S.\_TV\_series)" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A\_Current\_Affair\_(U.S.\_TV\_series)</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember " A Current Affair ?
" Tabloid TV at its nadir .
Apparently , this guy is trying to sink even lower .
He did n't get the memo that this sort of thing was so " been there , done that " two decades ago.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A \ _Current \ _Affair \ _ ( U.S. \ _TV \ _series ) [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember "A Current Affair?
"  Tabloid TV at its nadir.
Apparently, this guy is trying to sink even lower.
He didn't get the memo that this sort of thing was so "been there, done that" two decades ago.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A\_Current\_Affair\_(U.S.\_TV\_series) [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000202</id>
	<title>Re:Just what modern news needs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265144040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Eh, can't be any worse than the Colbert Report.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh , ca n't be any worse than the Colbert Report .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eh, can't be any worse than the Colbert Report.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000294</id>
	<title>Re:interesting, but dangerous?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1265101260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to disagree. The Tiger Woods incident, for example, begged for a reconstruction based on very little detail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to disagree .
The Tiger Woods incident , for example , begged for a reconstruction based on very little detail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to disagree.
The Tiger Woods incident, for example, begged for a reconstruction based on very little detail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31003128</id>
	<title>This was actually done in 1918 by Winsor McCay</title>
	<author>uglyMood</author>
	<datestamp>1265115780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After the Cunard ocean liner <i>Lusitania</i> was torpedoed by the German U-Boat <i>U-20</i> in May, 1915, the great Winsor McCay was asked to animate the disaster.  This was not a minor film; McCay was not only the best animator alive, he had invented the medium himself.  It was released in 1918 and used as part of the ongoing anti-German propaganda effort.</p><ul>
<li>Background on the 18-minute film can be found here: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Sinking\_of\_the\_Lusitania" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Sinking\_of\_the\_Lusitania</a> [wikipedia.org] </li><li> <i>The Sinking of the Lusitania</i> can be found on YouTube, but a higher-quality version can be viewed or downloaded at the Internet Archives: <a href="http://www.archive.org/details/Sinking\_of\_the\_Lusitania" title="archive.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.archive.org/details/Sinking\_of\_the\_Lusitania</a> [archive.org] </li><li>More on the ship can be found here: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS\_Lusitania" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS\_Lusitania</a> [wikipedia.org] </li><li>If you're interested in Winsor McCay (and you should be if you like animation), this is a good place to start: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winsor\_McCay" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winsor\_McCay</a> [wikipedia.org]</li> 
</ul><p>Curiously, even this 92-year-old pioneering classic demonstrates the dangers of using animation based on incomplete, mistaken or biased reportage and presenting it as fact.  The film depicts the liner being hit by two torpedoes, when in fact the second explosion was internal.  The <i>Lusitania</i> was described as an innocent passenger liner, but the Germans contend to this day that she was transporting far more munitions than were recorded in her manifest, and was thus a legitimate target.  The English have not helped their cause any in the intervening years: they did their best to destroy the wreck with depth charges in the 1950s.  More recently, millions of rounds of unrecorded ammunition have been found by divers at the site, lending credence to the German claims.</p><p>On a mildly related note, around this time the Hearst papers (and others, but Hearst was notorious for it) routinely used artists and retouched photos to "reenact" extremely lurid depictions of crimes, with helpful arrows and labels presenting their suppositions as fact.  This practice was continued for several decades, and Lord knows how many innocent people were sent to prison or executed because of the bias these "reconstructions" introduced into society.</p><p>It was bad then.  It's bad now.  This is a dangerous path to tread.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After the Cunard ocean liner Lusitania was torpedoed by the German U-Boat U-20 in May , 1915 , the great Winsor McCay was asked to animate the disaster .
This was not a minor film ; McCay was not only the best animator alive , he had invented the medium himself .
It was released in 1918 and used as part of the ongoing anti-German propaganda effort .
Background on the 18-minute film can be found here : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _Sinking \ _of \ _the \ _Lusitania [ wikipedia.org ] The Sinking of the Lusitania can be found on YouTube , but a higher-quality version can be viewed or downloaded at the Internet Archives : http : //www.archive.org/details/Sinking \ _of \ _the \ _Lusitania [ archive.org ] More on the ship can be found here : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS \ _Lusitania [ wikipedia.org ] If you 're interested in Winsor McCay ( and you should be if you like animation ) , this is a good place to start : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winsor \ _McCay [ wikipedia.org ] Curiously , even this 92-year-old pioneering classic demonstrates the dangers of using animation based on incomplete , mistaken or biased reportage and presenting it as fact .
The film depicts the liner being hit by two torpedoes , when in fact the second explosion was internal .
The Lusitania was described as an innocent passenger liner , but the Germans contend to this day that she was transporting far more munitions than were recorded in her manifest , and was thus a legitimate target .
The English have not helped their cause any in the intervening years : they did their best to destroy the wreck with depth charges in the 1950s .
More recently , millions of rounds of unrecorded ammunition have been found by divers at the site , lending credence to the German claims.On a mildly related note , around this time the Hearst papers ( and others , but Hearst was notorious for it ) routinely used artists and retouched photos to " reenact " extremely lurid depictions of crimes , with helpful arrows and labels presenting their suppositions as fact .
This practice was continued for several decades , and Lord knows how many innocent people were sent to prison or executed because of the bias these " reconstructions " introduced into society.It was bad then .
It 's bad now .
This is a dangerous path to tread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After the Cunard ocean liner Lusitania was torpedoed by the German U-Boat U-20 in May, 1915, the great Winsor McCay was asked to animate the disaster.
This was not a minor film; McCay was not only the best animator alive, he had invented the medium himself.
It was released in 1918 and used as part of the ongoing anti-German propaganda effort.
Background on the 18-minute film can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Sinking\_of\_the\_Lusitania [wikipedia.org]  The Sinking of the Lusitania can be found on YouTube, but a higher-quality version can be viewed or downloaded at the Internet Archives: http://www.archive.org/details/Sinking\_of\_the\_Lusitania [archive.org] More on the ship can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS\_Lusitania [wikipedia.org] If you're interested in Winsor McCay (and you should be if you like animation), this is a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winsor\_McCay [wikipedia.org] 
Curiously, even this 92-year-old pioneering classic demonstrates the dangers of using animation based on incomplete, mistaken or biased reportage and presenting it as fact.
The film depicts the liner being hit by two torpedoes, when in fact the second explosion was internal.
The Lusitania was described as an innocent passenger liner, but the Germans contend to this day that she was transporting far more munitions than were recorded in her manifest, and was thus a legitimate target.
The English have not helped their cause any in the intervening years: they did their best to destroy the wreck with depth charges in the 1950s.
More recently, millions of rounds of unrecorded ammunition have been found by divers at the site, lending credence to the German claims.On a mildly related note, around this time the Hearst papers (and others, but Hearst was notorious for it) routinely used artists and retouched photos to "reenact" extremely lurid depictions of crimes, with helpful arrows and labels presenting their suppositions as fact.
This practice was continued for several decades, and Lord knows how many innocent people were sent to prison or executed because of the bias these "reconstructions" introduced into society.It was bad then.
It's bad now.
This is a dangerous path to tread.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000796</id>
	<title>Re:Finally! Just what we need!</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1265103420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably something like <a href="http://www.gocomics.com/inkpen" title="gocomics.com">Ink Pen</a> [gocomics.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably something like Ink Pen [ gocomics.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably something like Ink Pen [gocomics.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31001354</id>
	<title>Prior art</title>
	<author>SteveFoerster</author>
	<datestamp>1265105940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this philosophically different from courtroom sketch artists?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this philosophically different from courtroom sketch artists ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this philosophically different from courtroom sketch artists?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31003054</id>
	<title>Re:Crap.</title>
	<author>Dirtside</author>
	<datestamp>1265115420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This new concept seems designed to skirt the sensors.</p></div><p>That's impossible! No magazine that small has a cloaking device.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This new concept seems designed to skirt the sensors.That 's impossible !
No magazine that small has a cloaking device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This new concept seems designed to skirt the sensors.That's impossible!
No magazine that small has a cloaking device.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31001102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000964</id>
	<title>Re:interesting, but dangerous?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265104080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And since when does viewer opinion matter??!<br>This would allow rendering of less intimidating news, watching angry muslims burning flags, dictator hangings, skyscrapers getting hit by jet planes, people dying, people living in poverty and dreadful conditions and the usual emotions that it propagates. You might have been told you 'have a right to know'... I call BS on that, it's purely a defense for enjoying watching other people suffer, and we gladly pay for it.</p><p>In this case correlation == causation, we act on our emotions. We all have empathy which intrigues us into watching news, for the wrong reasons... Enough of this, maybe I'll go blow something up now to voice my opinion on telly, news at 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And since when does viewer opinion matter ? ?
! This would allow rendering of less intimidating news , watching angry muslims burning flags , dictator hangings , skyscrapers getting hit by jet planes , people dying , people living in poverty and dreadful conditions and the usual emotions that it propagates .
You might have been told you 'have a right to know'... I call BS on that , it 's purely a defense for enjoying watching other people suffer , and we gladly pay for it.In this case correlation = = causation , we act on our emotions .
We all have empathy which intrigues us into watching news , for the wrong reasons... Enough of this , maybe I 'll go blow something up now to voice my opinion on telly , news at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And since when does viewer opinion matter??
!This would allow rendering of less intimidating news, watching angry muslims burning flags, dictator hangings, skyscrapers getting hit by jet planes, people dying, people living in poverty and dreadful conditions and the usual emotions that it propagates.
You might have been told you 'have a right to know'... I call BS on that, it's purely a defense for enjoying watching other people suffer, and we gladly pay for it.In this case correlation == causation, we act on our emotions.
We all have empathy which intrigues us into watching news, for the wrong reasons... Enough of this, maybe I'll go blow something up now to voice my opinion on telly, news at 11.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000754</id>
	<title>It's hilarious but is it really needed?</title>
	<author>grapeape</author>
	<datestamp>1265103300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The tiger woods thing was funny as hell, saw it a couple days after the "reports" were in, this will be great for trash tv and tabloid journalisim I suppose but I really think that the new legitimate news sources out there should really step away from this.  It looks more like a way to really get into hot water as they seem to be created based on their interpretation of events rather than actual factual information.  Initial opinion and actual findings tend to vary greatly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The tiger woods thing was funny as hell , saw it a couple days after the " reports " were in , this will be great for trash tv and tabloid journalisim I suppose but I really think that the new legitimate news sources out there should really step away from this .
It looks more like a way to really get into hot water as they seem to be created based on their interpretation of events rather than actual factual information .
Initial opinion and actual findings tend to vary greatly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The tiger woods thing was funny as hell, saw it a couple days after the "reports" were in, this will be great for trash tv and tabloid journalisim I suppose but I really think that the new legitimate news sources out there should really step away from this.
It looks more like a way to really get into hot water as they seem to be created based on their interpretation of events rather than actual factual information.
Initial opinion and actual findings tend to vary greatly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31002436</id>
	<title>xtranormal.com</title>
	<author>otis wildflower</author>
	<datestamp>1265111940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL the xtranormal.com bits on Red Eye are better</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL the xtranormal.com bits on Red Eye are better</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL the xtranormal.com bits on Red Eye are better</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000500</id>
	<title>No thank you</title>
	<author>CrazyJim1</author>
	<datestamp>1265102160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>News agencies should be reporting, not making up the news.</htmltext>
<tokenext>News agencies should be reporting , not making up the news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>News agencies should be reporting, not making up the news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000802</id>
	<title>Re:Just what modern news needs</title>
	<author>TBoon</author>
	<datestamp>1265103480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My second thought was that CNN is going to love this.</p></div><p>Which brings up the question, "is showing anthropomorphic animals bleeding more or less child-friendly than showing real humans being shot?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My second thought was that CNN is going to love this.Which brings up the question , " is showing anthropomorphic animals bleeding more or less child-friendly than showing real humans being shot ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My second thought was that CNN is going to love this.Which brings up the question, "is showing anthropomorphic animals bleeding more or less child-friendly than showing real humans being shot?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000280</id>
	<title>Re:Just what modern news needs</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1265101200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This only opens the door for The National Enquirer Evening News.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This only opens the door for The National Enquirer Evening News .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This only opens the door for The National Enquirer Evening News.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000816</id>
	<title>Re:Just what modern news needs</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1265103480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My first thought was that this is totally unnecessary and sensationalist use of technology.  My second thought was that CNN is going to love this.</p></div><p>"Today on CNN, teabaggers are alleging that the president is actually from Narnia, and that he killed the Lion, had sex with the Witch, and hid in the wardrobe. Here is a cgi rendering of that event, with a bad-ass dragon added in, and for some reason, Rush. Who the hell listens to Rush? Our CNN instapoll says that 15\% of you listen to Rush, 80\% do not, and 5\% of you were just pressing buttons. Next, we're going to spend thirty minutes reading twitter"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My first thought was that this is totally unnecessary and sensationalist use of technology .
My second thought was that CNN is going to love this .
" Today on CNN , teabaggers are alleging that the president is actually from Narnia , and that he killed the Lion , had sex with the Witch , and hid in the wardrobe .
Here is a cgi rendering of that event , with a bad-ass dragon added in , and for some reason , Rush .
Who the hell listens to Rush ?
Our CNN instapoll says that 15 \ % of you listen to Rush , 80 \ % do not , and 5 \ % of you were just pressing buttons .
Next , we 're going to spend thirty minutes reading twitter "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first thought was that this is totally unnecessary and sensationalist use of technology.
My second thought was that CNN is going to love this.
"Today on CNN, teabaggers are alleging that the president is actually from Narnia, and that he killed the Lion, had sex with the Witch, and hid in the wardrobe.
Here is a cgi rendering of that event, with a bad-ass dragon added in, and for some reason, Rush.
Who the hell listens to Rush?
Our CNN instapoll says that 15\% of you listen to Rush, 80\% do not, and 5\% of you were just pressing buttons.
Next, we're going to spend thirty minutes reading twitter"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000350</id>
	<title>It's been done for awhile now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265101560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's just a digital re-enactment. The only difference here is they are doing it for the nightly news. Faster software and computers that's the real change. There's talk of whether they should do it which is silly and pointless since it's been around for years and most networks do it in some form. The real line would be if the results were photo real and it wasn't referred to as a re-enactment. So long as it's never presented as the real thing I don't see a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just a digital re-enactment .
The only difference here is they are doing it for the nightly news .
Faster software and computers that 's the real change .
There 's talk of whether they should do it which is silly and pointless since it 's been around for years and most networks do it in some form .
The real line would be if the results were photo real and it was n't referred to as a re-enactment .
So long as it 's never presented as the real thing I do n't see a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just a digital re-enactment.
The only difference here is they are doing it for the nightly news.
Faster software and computers that's the real change.
There's talk of whether they should do it which is silly and pointless since it's been around for years and most networks do it in some form.
The real line would be if the results were photo real and it wasn't referred to as a re-enactment.
So long as it's never presented as the real thing I don't see a problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31001646</id>
	<title>How long</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1265107680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How long will it take before someone is convicted because of one of these reenactments?</p><p>Mr. Burns, you are hereby sentenced to 10 years in prison for selling Homer to the North Koreans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How long will it take before someone is convicted because of one of these reenactments ? Mr .
Burns , you are hereby sentenced to 10 years in prison for selling Homer to the North Koreans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long will it take before someone is convicted because of one of these reenactments?Mr.
Burns, you are hereby sentenced to 10 years in prison for selling Homer to the North Koreans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000550</id>
	<title>Fabricated news</title>
	<author>jgagnon</author>
	<datestamp>1265102340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This should make fabricated news more believable!</p><p>Win/win?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/facepalm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This should make fabricated news more believable ! Win/win ?
/facepalm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This should make fabricated news more believable!Win/win?
/facepalm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000072</id>
	<title>Finally! Just what we need!</title>
	<author>happy\_place</author>
	<datestamp>1265143560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't wait to see what my favorite cartoon characters are doing day to day, when they're not starring in films/television.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't wait to see what my favorite cartoon characters are doing day to day , when they 're not starring in films/television .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't wait to see what my favorite cartoon characters are doing day to day, when they're not starring in films/television.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000408</id>
	<title>Re:Just what modern news needs</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1265101740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My first thought was that this is totally unnecessary and sensationalist use of technology. My second thought was that CNN is going to love this.</p></div><p>A vapid and useless implementation of technology that is to information what a cheeto is to nutrition. I don't see how this could possibly go right.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My first thought was that this is totally unnecessary and sensationalist use of technology .
My second thought was that CNN is going to love this.A vapid and useless implementation of technology that is to information what a cheeto is to nutrition .
I do n't see how this could possibly go right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first thought was that this is totally unnecessary and sensationalist use of technology.
My second thought was that CNN is going to love this.A vapid and useless implementation of technology that is to information what a cheeto is to nutrition.
I don't see how this could possibly go right.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000266</id>
	<title>Re:Tag: firesamzenpus</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1265144280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll second that we have enough news service lies without fabricating Lai's news service.<br>This only invites the bullshit to pile deeper than nose high.<br>It's bad enough to watch hokey recreations of crime scenes on t.v.<br>Can you imagine the spin the newsclowns will then be able to put on anything?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll second that we have enough news service lies without fabricating Lai 's news service.This only invites the bullshit to pile deeper than nose high.It 's bad enough to watch hokey recreations of crime scenes on t.v.Can you imagine the spin the newsclowns will then be able to put on anything ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll second that we have enough news service lies without fabricating Lai's news service.This only invites the bullshit to pile deeper than nose high.It's bad enough to watch hokey recreations of crime scenes on t.v.Can you imagine the spin the newsclowns will then be able to put on anything?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.30999982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000442</id>
	<title>Re:interesting, but dangerous?</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1265101920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>viewer may base its opinion on video footage.</p></div><p>"May"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it seems that almost everyone DOES.  In fact, it seems many people base their opinions on movies in theaters.  I have no doubt they base opinions on video footage (animated or not) when they see news, far more than any actual facts that may (or may not) be recited by the newscaster...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>viewer may base its opinion on video footage .
" May " ... it seems that almost everyone DOES .
In fact , it seems many people base their opinions on movies in theaters .
I have no doubt they base opinions on video footage ( animated or not ) when they see news , far more than any actual facts that may ( or may not ) be recited by the newscaster.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>viewer may base its opinion on video footage.
"May" ... it seems that almost everyone DOES.
In fact, it seems many people base their opinions on movies in theaters.
I have no doubt they base opinions on video footage (animated or not) when they see news, far more than any actual facts that may (or may not) be recited by the newscaster...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000120</id>
	<title>Sequel to Max Headroom?</title>
	<author>starglider29a</author>
	<datestamp>1265143800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Enactors learn that the report couldn't be true. Slow news day makes up news. Enactors actually commit acts which they re-enact as news. Political assassinations, for example. Private company fakes moon landing... the works...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Enactors learn that the report could n't be true .
Slow news day makes up news .
Enactors actually commit acts which they re-enact as news .
Political assassinations , for example .
Private company fakes moon landing... the works.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Enactors learn that the report couldn't be true.
Slow news day makes up news.
Enactors actually commit acts which they re-enact as news.
Political assassinations, for example.
Private company fakes moon landing... the works...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000068</id>
	<title>Just what modern news needs</title>
	<author>OG</author>
	<datestamp>1265143560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>My first thought was that this is totally unnecessary and sensationalist use of technology.  My second thought was that CNN is going to love this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My first thought was that this is totally unnecessary and sensationalist use of technology .
My second thought was that CNN is going to love this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first thought was that this is totally unnecessary and sensationalist use of technology.
My second thought was that CNN is going to love this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000422</id>
	<title>Could be awesome</title>
	<author>cohensh</author>
	<datestamp>1265101800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it's anything like the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULB29qLs1f0" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Conan O'Brien animation</a> [youtube.com] I look forward to getting 100\% of my news this way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's anything like the Conan O'Brien animation [ youtube.com ] I look forward to getting 100 \ % of my news this way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's anything like the Conan O'Brien animation [youtube.com] I look forward to getting 100\% of my news this way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31001130</id>
	<title>That was brilliant!</title>
	<author>hallucinogen</author>
	<datestamp>1265105040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had heard about the accident, but had no idea what really happened. Having now watched that thing I totally know what went down. Not that it makes it any more meaningful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had heard about the accident , but had no idea what really happened .
Having now watched that thing I totally know what went down .
Not that it makes it any more meaningful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had heard about the accident, but had no idea what really happened.
Having now watched that thing I totally know what went down.
Not that it makes it any more meaningful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000034</id>
	<title>I like it!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265143380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would definitely watch that</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would definitely watch that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would definitely watch that</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000412</id>
	<title>Re:interesting, but dangerous?</title>
	<author>jfengel</author>
	<datestamp>1265101740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think that's a dangerous move, as the viewer may base its opinion on video footage.</p></div><p>As opposed to now, where viewers are only to happy to base their opinions on nothing whatsoever.</p><p>It's six of one, really.  It's disappointing how easily viewers are manipulated.  You could stick a flashing RECONSTRUCTION over the footage, and they're still going to come out convinced that they were right there when it happened.</p><p>And worse... they'll hold the same opinion, almost as strongly, if you just tell it to them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that 's a dangerous move , as the viewer may base its opinion on video footage.As opposed to now , where viewers are only to happy to base their opinions on nothing whatsoever.It 's six of one , really .
It 's disappointing how easily viewers are manipulated .
You could stick a flashing RECONSTRUCTION over the footage , and they 're still going to come out convinced that they were right there when it happened.And worse... they 'll hold the same opinion , almost as strongly , if you just tell it to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that's a dangerous move, as the viewer may base its opinion on video footage.As opposed to now, where viewers are only to happy to base their opinions on nothing whatsoever.It's six of one, really.
It's disappointing how easily viewers are manipulated.
You could stick a flashing RECONSTRUCTION over the footage, and they're still going to come out convinced that they were right there when it happened.And worse... they'll hold the same opinion, almost as strongly, if you just tell it to them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000498</id>
	<title>I'm Inner Party Member</title>
	<author>idontgno</author>
	<datestamp>1265102160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Malcom McDoohanigan, Director of the MiniTrue, and Big Brother and I approve of this technology. DoublePlusGood!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Malcom McDoohanigan , Director of the MiniTrue , and Big Brother and I approve of this technology .
DoublePlusGood !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Malcom McDoohanigan, Director of the MiniTrue, and Big Brother and I approve of this technology.
DoublePlusGood!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000198</id>
	<title>interesting, but dangerous?</title>
	<author>Jesus\_Corpse</author>
	<datestamp>1265144040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although from a technological point of view it is very interesting, a lot of details missing from the regular videos need to be 'made up' for the reconstruction. I think that's a dangerous move, as the viewer may base its opinion on video footage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although from a technological point of view it is very interesting , a lot of details missing from the regular videos need to be 'made up ' for the reconstruction .
I think that 's a dangerous move , as the viewer may base its opinion on video footage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although from a technological point of view it is very interesting, a lot of details missing from the regular videos need to be 'made up' for the reconstruction.
I think that's a dangerous move, as the viewer may base its opinion on video footage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31002086</id>
	<title>Re:Tiger woods played by Kermit the frog</title>
	<author>severoon</author>
	<datestamp>1265110020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This animation-as-news stuff is brilliant! This is just what the news has been lacking, the presentation of a completely imaginary, emotionally laden point of view brimming with value judgments!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This animation-as-news stuff is brilliant !
This is just what the news has been lacking , the presentation of a completely imaginary , emotionally laden point of view brimming with value judgments !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This animation-as-news stuff is brilliant!
This is just what the news has been lacking, the presentation of a completely imaginary, emotionally laden point of view brimming with value judgments!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000440</id>
	<title>Re:interesting, but dangerous?</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1265101920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Although from a technological point of view it is very interesting, a lot of details missing from the regular videos need to be 'made up' for the reconstruction. I think that's a dangerous move, as the viewer may base its opinion on video footage.</p></div><p>If Barry Hussein Obama isn't a secret muslim, then why come I have this computer animation of him praying on a carpet in the oval office?!?!!?!? The facts make up themselves!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although from a technological point of view it is very interesting , a lot of details missing from the regular videos need to be 'made up ' for the reconstruction .
I think that 's a dangerous move , as the viewer may base its opinion on video footage.If Barry Hussein Obama is n't a secret muslim , then why come I have this computer animation of him praying on a carpet in the oval office ? ! ? ! ! ? ! ?
The facts make up themselves !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although from a technological point of view it is very interesting, a lot of details missing from the regular videos need to be 'made up' for the reconstruction.
I think that's a dangerous move, as the viewer may base its opinion on video footage.If Barry Hussein Obama isn't a secret muslim, then why come I have this computer animation of him praying on a carpet in the oval office?!?!!?!?
The facts make up themselves!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31001102</id>
	<title>Crap.</title>
	<author>MaWeiTao</author>
	<datestamp>1265104800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember when this guy's magazine, Next Magazine, was introduced in Taiwan. It was basically a sensationalist tabloid style rag. The magazine's big thing was shock. They ran stories which graphic photos of dramatic accidents, high-profile murders and sex scandals. Or at least they went as far as they could get away with, which was pretty far. They were also notorious for running stories which turned out to be untrue. If I remember correctly they were one of the originals to run the story of people in China supposedly eating unborn fetuses. It turned out it was all staged as a statement by some artist.</p><p>This new concept seems designed to skirt the sensors. However, I'm curious to know if this guy has been inspired by others. A couple of years ago I found Taiwanese magazines publishing illustrations of crimes to depict what had happened. Except that they get comically gratuitous with what they depict. It was so absurd I had to clip a few of these to show some friends in the states. In one case a girl was about to get raped and instead offers to perform fellatio on the rapist instead. When he's done his business and leaves, she takes the "evidence", spits it out in a napkin, and takes it to the police. This was all conveniently illustrated in detail, the girl on her knees with the guy standing in front her, and the girl spitting out the stuff. While this technique has been applied to many kinds of stories, predictably, the majority involve sex crimes of one sort or another.</p><p>I think news networks have already been running similar cartoons and the Taiwanese government has gotten involved to deal with this. It's pretty much a blatant violation of broadcast rules, but it's pretty easy to dance around the rules there. I'm sure many will argue free speech, but the think here is that this is not driven by desire to inform the public. It's driven by a desire to shock and titillate to boost ratings. People will definitely complain about how indecent it is, but they're all going to happily tune in anyway. It wont be long, however, until this guy no longer has a monopoly on this sort of thing. Everyone will be quick to copy this, at least until the government puts a final stop to this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember when this guy 's magazine , Next Magazine , was introduced in Taiwan .
It was basically a sensationalist tabloid style rag .
The magazine 's big thing was shock .
They ran stories which graphic photos of dramatic accidents , high-profile murders and sex scandals .
Or at least they went as far as they could get away with , which was pretty far .
They were also notorious for running stories which turned out to be untrue .
If I remember correctly they were one of the originals to run the story of people in China supposedly eating unborn fetuses .
It turned out it was all staged as a statement by some artist.This new concept seems designed to skirt the sensors .
However , I 'm curious to know if this guy has been inspired by others .
A couple of years ago I found Taiwanese magazines publishing illustrations of crimes to depict what had happened .
Except that they get comically gratuitous with what they depict .
It was so absurd I had to clip a few of these to show some friends in the states .
In one case a girl was about to get raped and instead offers to perform fellatio on the rapist instead .
When he 's done his business and leaves , she takes the " evidence " , spits it out in a napkin , and takes it to the police .
This was all conveniently illustrated in detail , the girl on her knees with the guy standing in front her , and the girl spitting out the stuff .
While this technique has been applied to many kinds of stories , predictably , the majority involve sex crimes of one sort or another.I think news networks have already been running similar cartoons and the Taiwanese government has gotten involved to deal with this .
It 's pretty much a blatant violation of broadcast rules , but it 's pretty easy to dance around the rules there .
I 'm sure many will argue free speech , but the think here is that this is not driven by desire to inform the public .
It 's driven by a desire to shock and titillate to boost ratings .
People will definitely complain about how indecent it is , but they 're all going to happily tune in anyway .
It wont be long , however , until this guy no longer has a monopoly on this sort of thing .
Everyone will be quick to copy this , at least until the government puts a final stop to this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember when this guy's magazine, Next Magazine, was introduced in Taiwan.
It was basically a sensationalist tabloid style rag.
The magazine's big thing was shock.
They ran stories which graphic photos of dramatic accidents, high-profile murders and sex scandals.
Or at least they went as far as they could get away with, which was pretty far.
They were also notorious for running stories which turned out to be untrue.
If I remember correctly they were one of the originals to run the story of people in China supposedly eating unborn fetuses.
It turned out it was all staged as a statement by some artist.This new concept seems designed to skirt the sensors.
However, I'm curious to know if this guy has been inspired by others.
A couple of years ago I found Taiwanese magazines publishing illustrations of crimes to depict what had happened.
Except that they get comically gratuitous with what they depict.
It was so absurd I had to clip a few of these to show some friends in the states.
In one case a girl was about to get raped and instead offers to perform fellatio on the rapist instead.
When he's done his business and leaves, she takes the "evidence", spits it out in a napkin, and takes it to the police.
This was all conveniently illustrated in detail, the girl on her knees with the guy standing in front her, and the girl spitting out the stuff.
While this technique has been applied to many kinds of stories, predictably, the majority involve sex crimes of one sort or another.I think news networks have already been running similar cartoons and the Taiwanese government has gotten involved to deal with this.
It's pretty much a blatant violation of broadcast rules, but it's pretty easy to dance around the rules there.
I'm sure many will argue free speech, but the think here is that this is not driven by desire to inform the public.
It's driven by a desire to shock and titillate to boost ratings.
People will definitely complain about how indecent it is, but they're all going to happily tune in anyway.
It wont be long, however, until this guy no longer has a monopoly on this sort of thing.
Everyone will be quick to copy this, at least until the government puts a final stop to this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31002316</id>
	<title>Re:Re-enactment Top 10 Wishlist: Slashdot</title>
	<author>TheQuantumShift</author>
	<datestamp>1265111280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really don't want to even think of 300 typical slashdotters in typical spartan attire. Ever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't want to even think of 300 typical slashdotters in typical spartan attire .
Ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't want to even think of 300 typical slashdotters in typical spartan attire.
Ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000852</id>
	<title>For certain definitions of "animated"</title>
	<author>Captain Spam</author>
	<datestamp>1265103660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I first saw the headline, I thought to myself, y'know, if what they were doing was doing an animated news program as in making a series of hand-drawn cel animations for the various stories and anchorpeople, as well as reasonably well-drawn though still simplified and stylized backgrounds accurate to the locations in which the news takes place, AND keep it a relatively serious program, THAT would impress the hell out of me.  Granted, this would partly be due to the sheer technical infeasibility of the ordeal, now that I think about it, unless you viciously sacrifice both the quality of the character models AND any semblance of fluidity in the  animation to do the job.</p><p>But just motion capping people doing reenactments?  That... not so impressive or interesting.  Especially if you've ever seen a live mocap job without post-production, which would most likely need to be done to allow the news to stay any bit current.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I first saw the headline , I thought to myself , y'know , if what they were doing was doing an animated news program as in making a series of hand-drawn cel animations for the various stories and anchorpeople , as well as reasonably well-drawn though still simplified and stylized backgrounds accurate to the locations in which the news takes place , AND keep it a relatively serious program , THAT would impress the hell out of me .
Granted , this would partly be due to the sheer technical infeasibility of the ordeal , now that I think about it , unless you viciously sacrifice both the quality of the character models AND any semblance of fluidity in the animation to do the job.But just motion capping people doing reenactments ?
That... not so impressive or interesting .
Especially if you 've ever seen a live mocap job without post-production , which would most likely need to be done to allow the news to stay any bit current .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I first saw the headline, I thought to myself, y'know, if what they were doing was doing an animated news program as in making a series of hand-drawn cel animations for the various stories and anchorpeople, as well as reasonably well-drawn though still simplified and stylized backgrounds accurate to the locations in which the news takes place, AND keep it a relatively serious program, THAT would impress the hell out of me.
Granted, this would partly be due to the sheer technical infeasibility of the ordeal, now that I think about it, unless you viciously sacrifice both the quality of the character models AND any semblance of fluidity in the  animation to do the job.But just motion capping people doing reenactments?
That... not so impressive or interesting.
Especially if you've ever seen a live mocap job without post-production, which would most likely need to be done to allow the news to stay any bit current.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000010</id>
	<title>Tiger woods played by Kermit the frog</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1265143260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't you just see Elin as Miss Piggy? Haaaaayyyyaaaahhhh!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't you just see Elin as Miss Piggy ?
Haaaaayyyyaaaahhhh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't you just see Elin as Miss Piggy?
Haaaaayyyyaaaahhhh!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000570</id>
	<title>Re-enactment Top 10 Wishlist: Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265102460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Number 10.   Carmack and Romero fist fight<br>
Number 9. Woz sex with Kathy Griffin<br>
Number 8. A series of tubes, not a big truck<br>
Number 7. Wesley Crusher sucked into a warp drive<br>
Number 6. Ballmer doing Dancing with the Stars to the 'Developers Developers Developers Developers'  remix  <br>
Number 5. Darl McBride being force fed into a wood chipper by the guys from Fargo <br>
Number 4. Stallman and Schneier as banjo dueling Santas<br>
Number 3. Cowboy Neal<br>
Number 2. 10,000 Anonymous Cowards hacked to bits by the 300 Spartans yelling "This is Slashdot!"<br> <br>
And the Number one re-enactment wish for Slashdot: Duke Nukem Forever</htmltext>
<tokenext>Number 10 .
Carmack and Romero fist fight Number 9 .
Woz sex with Kathy Griffin Number 8 .
A series of tubes , not a big truck Number 7 .
Wesley Crusher sucked into a warp drive Number 6 .
Ballmer doing Dancing with the Stars to the 'Developers Developers Developers Developers ' remix Number 5 .
Darl McBride being force fed into a wood chipper by the guys from Fargo Number 4 .
Stallman and Schneier as banjo dueling Santas Number 3 .
Cowboy Neal Number 2 .
10,000 Anonymous Cowards hacked to bits by the 300 Spartans yelling " This is Slashdot !
" And the Number one re-enactment wish for Slashdot : Duke Nukem Forever</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Number 10.
Carmack and Romero fist fight
Number 9.
Woz sex with Kathy Griffin
Number 8.
A series of tubes, not a big truck
Number 7.
Wesley Crusher sucked into a warp drive
Number 6.
Ballmer doing Dancing with the Stars to the 'Developers Developers Developers Developers'  remix  
Number 5.
Darl McBride being force fed into a wood chipper by the guys from Fargo 
Number 4.
Stallman and Schneier as banjo dueling Santas
Number 3.
Cowboy Neal
Number 2.
10,000 Anonymous Cowards hacked to bits by the 300 Spartans yelling "This is Slashdot!
" 
And the Number one re-enactment wish for Slashdot: Duke Nukem Forever</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000384</id>
	<title>Re:interesting, but dangerous?</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1265101680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dangerous? Why not a medium for plain propaganda? Why just report that some foreing country authorities met, when you can see them in the meeting, maybe eating something that your religion forbids or telling jokes about your country? And that just about international policies, think it being used about your rival political party or justifying some unpopular move.<br><br>Heck, if this gets a bit more realistic we could totally buy that we landed in Pandora just to preserve their ecology taking out some dirty metal buried there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dangerous ?
Why not a medium for plain propaganda ?
Why just report that some foreing country authorities met , when you can see them in the meeting , maybe eating something that your religion forbids or telling jokes about your country ?
And that just about international policies , think it being used about your rival political party or justifying some unpopular move.Heck , if this gets a bit more realistic we could totally buy that we landed in Pandora just to preserve their ecology taking out some dirty metal buried there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dangerous?
Why not a medium for plain propaganda?
Why just report that some foreing country authorities met, when you can see them in the meeting, maybe eating something that your religion forbids or telling jokes about your country?
And that just about international policies, think it being used about your rival political party or justifying some unpopular move.Heck, if this gets a bit more realistic we could totally buy that we landed in Pandora just to preserve their ecology taking out some dirty metal buried there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.30999982</id>
	<title>Tag: firesamzenpus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265143200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31005762</id>
	<title>Next Magazine was the best magazine I ever read</title>
	<author>ub3r n3u7r4l1st</author>
	<datestamp>1265132280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I start reading them when I was 10 years old in Hong Kong, and that was 1995. Little bit too "colorful", but more or less expose stories that are "hard to discover". Now here in the U.S. I still shell out $8 per issue to buy the Next Magazine (HK version). And don't forget they come out once per WEEK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I start reading them when I was 10 years old in Hong Kong , and that was 1995 .
Little bit too " colorful " , but more or less expose stories that are " hard to discover " .
Now here in the U.S. I still shell out $ 8 per issue to buy the Next Magazine ( HK version ) .
And do n't forget they come out once per WEEK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I start reading them when I was 10 years old in Hong Kong, and that was 1995.
Little bit too "colorful", but more or less expose stories that are "hard to discover".
Now here in the U.S. I still shell out $8 per issue to buy the Next Magazine (HK version).
And don't forget they come out once per WEEK.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31001102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000338</id>
	<title>Naked Animated News!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265101500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thats what I'm waiting for!</p><p>(must remember to select 'Post Anonymously')</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats what I 'm waiting for !
( must remember to select 'Post Anonymously ' )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats what I'm waiting for!
(must remember to select 'Post Anonymously')</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000186</id>
	<title>Fox "news" will love it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265143980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just... wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just... wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just... wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000206</id>
	<title>Re:Just what modern news needs</title>
	<author>hitnrunrambler</author>
	<datestamp>1265144100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My first thought was that this is totally unnecessary and sensationalist use of technology.  My second thought was that CNN is going to love this.</p></div><p>Yeah, mine too.<br>My second thought is "Fox news won't get it"</p><p>I picture Rupert Murdoch yelling: "Someone hire that camera man for me! He's phenomenal! He gets everything! Stupid CNN doesn't know what they've got, look at the lousy equipment they give him, everything looks like cartoons."</p><p>and Glenn Beck shouting: "See!  See! They're making this up. How do we known their 'Obama' really exists?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My first thought was that this is totally unnecessary and sensationalist use of technology .
My second thought was that CNN is going to love this.Yeah , mine too.My second thought is " Fox news wo n't get it " I picture Rupert Murdoch yelling : " Someone hire that camera man for me !
He 's phenomenal !
He gets everything !
Stupid CNN does n't know what they 've got , look at the lousy equipment they give him , everything looks like cartoons .
" and Glenn Beck shouting : " See !
See ! They 're making this up .
How do we known their 'Obama ' really exists ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first thought was that this is totally unnecessary and sensationalist use of technology.
My second thought was that CNN is going to love this.Yeah, mine too.My second thought is "Fox news won't get it"I picture Rupert Murdoch yelling: "Someone hire that camera man for me!
He's phenomenal!
He gets everything!
Stupid CNN doesn't know what they've got, look at the lousy equipment they give him, everything looks like cartoons.
"and Glenn Beck shouting: "See!
See! They're making this up.
How do we known their 'Obama' really exists?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000592</id>
	<title>Re:Just what modern news needs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265102580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Heh, the post above yours had Miss Piggy. Yours was CNN. I automagically thought of that Harpy, Nancy Grace, as being the prime user of this stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh , the post above yours had Miss Piggy .
Yours was CNN .
I automagically thought of that Harpy , Nancy Grace , as being the prime user of this stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh, the post above yours had Miss Piggy.
Yours was CNN.
I automagically thought of that Harpy, Nancy Grace, as being the prime user of this stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000068</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000336</id>
	<title>The March of Time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265101500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The basic idea isn't new.</p><p><a href="http://www.stepno.com/unc/graphic/" title="stepno.com">The Evening Graphic's tabloid reality</a> [stepno.com] of the twenties was "staged, faked and mostly naked."</p><p>Radio's <a href="http://www.radiohof.org/news/marchoftime.html" title="radiohof.org">The March of Time</a> [radiohof.org] used its resident company of actors to vividly recreate events that couldn't be broadcast live.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The basic idea is n't new.The Evening Graphic 's tabloid reality [ stepno.com ] of the twenties was " staged , faked and mostly naked .
" Radio 's The March of Time [ radiohof.org ] used its resident company of actors to vividly recreate events that could n't be broadcast live .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The basic idea isn't new.The Evening Graphic's tabloid reality [stepno.com] of the twenties was "staged, faked and mostly naked.
"Radio's The March of Time [radiohof.org] used its resident company of actors to vividly recreate events that couldn't be broadcast live.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1642207_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1642207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1642207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1642207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.30999982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1642207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1642207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1642207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1642207_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1642207_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1642207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31005762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31001102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1642207_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1642207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1642207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31001256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1642207_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1642207_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31014380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1642207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31003054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31001102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1642207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31002316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1642207_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1642207_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1642207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1642207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31002086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_02_1642207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1642207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1642207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.30999982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1642207.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31001646
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1642207.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1642207.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31001102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31005762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31003054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1642207.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1642207.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31001354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1642207.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1642207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1642207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000580
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1642207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31002316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1642207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1642207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31001256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31002086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1642207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000504
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31014380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_02_1642207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_02_1642207.31000500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
