<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_07_0126226</id>
	<title>95\% of User-Generated Content Is Bogus</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1265538180000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>coomaria writes <i>"The HoneyGrid <a href="http://www.daniweb.com/news/story258407.html">scans 40 million Web sites and 10 million emails</a>, so it was bound to find something interesting. Among the things it found was that a staggering 95\% of User Generated Content is either malicious in nature or spam."</i> Here is the report's <a href="http://www.websense.com/content/State-of-Internet-Security-Q3-Q4-2009.aspx?cmpid=prblog">front door</a>; to read the actual report you'll have to give up name, rank, and serial number.</htmltext>
<tokenext>coomaria writes " The HoneyGrid scans 40 million Web sites and 10 million emails , so it was bound to find something interesting .
Among the things it found was that a staggering 95 \ % of User Generated Content is either malicious in nature or spam .
" Here is the report 's front door ; to read the actual report you 'll have to give up name , rank , and serial number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>coomaria writes "The HoneyGrid scans 40 million Web sites and 10 million emails, so it was bound to find something interesting.
Among the things it found was that a staggering 95\% of User Generated Content is either malicious in nature or spam.
" Here is the report's front door; to read the actual report you'll have to give up name, rank, and serial number.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051470</id>
	<title>Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265543280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't assume they included Wikipedia in the "user generated" category, otherwise that much <i>non-bogus</i> content would have definitely  tipped the scale a bit. </p><p>In my personal experience however, even without wikipedia, I have not come across that much bogus stuff on forums and random comments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't assume they included Wikipedia in the " user generated " category , otherwise that much non-bogus content would have definitely tipped the scale a bit .
In my personal experience however , even without wikipedia , I have not come across that much bogus stuff on forums and random comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't assume they included Wikipedia in the "user generated" category, otherwise that much non-bogus content would have definitely  tipped the scale a bit.
In my personal experience however, even without wikipedia, I have not come across that much bogus stuff on forums and random comments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051858</id>
	<title>Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent.</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1265550420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> People tend to stick to about a dozen big sites that get very little rubbish posted on them at all.</p></div></blockquote><p>And when they want a change from that, they come here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People tend to stick to about a dozen big sites that get very little rubbish posted on them at all.And when they want a change from that , they come here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> People tend to stick to about a dozen big sites that get very little rubbish posted on them at all.And when they want a change from that, they come here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051574</id>
	<title>Re:So many floating ads in the first link</title>
	<author>kvezach</author>
	<datestamp>1265545140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's just proving its own point.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just proving its own point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just proving its own point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051542</id>
	<title>Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent.</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1265544660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of forum software works well, until it gets "behind the curve", and then the site maintainer pulls the site*.</p><p>By "behind the curve" I mean any of the following can/does happen:<br>1) Forum software gets out of date and user fails to upgrade due to modifications or similar, resulting in spam.<br>2) Forum software gets popular without having a good security model and/or update cycle, resulting in exploits.<br>3) Gets inundated with comment approvals and the forum (or blog) gets ignored or set to auto-allow out of frustration.</p><p>* By "pulls the site" I mean "abandons it but doesn't take it down". That's typically the end result.</p><p>It's a lot of work to maintain your own forum and/or blog: managing spam can and will take hours+ from your day if you've not got a good automated and/or textual way to deal with it: web interfaces are clumsy.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Car analogy: 95\% of cars are rusty old heaps of crap that can't move. Thankfully they're in scrapyards and not on the roads.</p></div><p>Yet, unlike most of those cars, the actual blog content is not necessarily useless. I have seen quite a few abandoned blogs and/or forums which have 3-10 year old information on them which is by no means useless; it's just getting buried.</p><p>Digital archeologists of the future will probably have to figure out an automated way to prune back the spam to find the actual Internet, the way things are going.</p><p>Consider: if spam accounts for 95\% of all user-generated content, and said user-generated content  is actually a non-trivial percentage of all actual content online (believable), consider how much bandwidth gets wasted by these spammers. (Thankfully, I suspect most of the 'user generated content spam' doesn't show up on the first couple search page results so it's not going to likely be perused with regularity - unless it's more heavily seeded on topics common folks search.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of forum software works well , until it gets " behind the curve " , and then the site maintainer pulls the site * .By " behind the curve " I mean any of the following can/does happen : 1 ) Forum software gets out of date and user fails to upgrade due to modifications or similar , resulting in spam.2 ) Forum software gets popular without having a good security model and/or update cycle , resulting in exploits.3 ) Gets inundated with comment approvals and the forum ( or blog ) gets ignored or set to auto-allow out of frustration .
* By " pulls the site " I mean " abandons it but does n't take it down " .
That 's typically the end result.It 's a lot of work to maintain your own forum and/or blog : managing spam can and will take hours + from your day if you 've not got a good automated and/or textual way to deal with it : web interfaces are clumsy.Car analogy : 95 \ % of cars are rusty old heaps of crap that ca n't move .
Thankfully they 're in scrapyards and not on the roads.Yet , unlike most of those cars , the actual blog content is not necessarily useless .
I have seen quite a few abandoned blogs and/or forums which have 3-10 year old information on them which is by no means useless ; it 's just getting buried.Digital archeologists of the future will probably have to figure out an automated way to prune back the spam to find the actual Internet , the way things are going.Consider : if spam accounts for 95 \ % of all user-generated content , and said user-generated content is actually a non-trivial percentage of all actual content online ( believable ) , consider how much bandwidth gets wasted by these spammers .
( Thankfully , I suspect most of the 'user generated content spam ' does n't show up on the first couple search page results so it 's not going to likely be perused with regularity - unless it 's more heavily seeded on topics common folks search .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of forum software works well, until it gets "behind the curve", and then the site maintainer pulls the site*.By "behind the curve" I mean any of the following can/does happen:1) Forum software gets out of date and user fails to upgrade due to modifications or similar, resulting in spam.2) Forum software gets popular without having a good security model and/or update cycle, resulting in exploits.3) Gets inundated with comment approvals and the forum (or blog) gets ignored or set to auto-allow out of frustration.
* By "pulls the site" I mean "abandons it but doesn't take it down".
That's typically the end result.It's a lot of work to maintain your own forum and/or blog: managing spam can and will take hours+ from your day if you've not got a good automated and/or textual way to deal with it: web interfaces are clumsy.Car analogy: 95\% of cars are rusty old heaps of crap that can't move.
Thankfully they're in scrapyards and not on the roads.Yet, unlike most of those cars, the actual blog content is not necessarily useless.
I have seen quite a few abandoned blogs and/or forums which have 3-10 year old information on them which is by no means useless; it's just getting buried.Digital archeologists of the future will probably have to figure out an automated way to prune back the spam to find the actual Internet, the way things are going.Consider: if spam accounts for 95\% of all user-generated content, and said user-generated content  is actually a non-trivial percentage of all actual content online (believable), consider how much bandwidth gets wasted by these spammers.
(Thankfully, I suspect most of the 'user generated content spam' doesn't show up on the first couple search page results so it's not going to likely be perused with regularity - unless it's more heavily seeded on topics common folks search.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051588</id>
	<title>ANY -single- number HAS to be MISLEADING...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265545260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can think of several areas, whose web sites seem - almost always - to be "spot on" technically, informationally &amp; operationally.</p><p>How can this "95\%" statistic have any meaning or usefullness?</p><p>We must ask: "Can you break that down?" (eg, by topic, field, application area, etc.)</p><p>There's way too much data out there on the question,<br>for a single number to be at all useful, except - possibly<br>- by commercial sites, who might try to convince us<br>that [only] their sites have non-bogus content...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-./</p><p>(Now, I'll see if there are any break-downs of this statistic,<br>eg, by reading the cited report...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can think of several areas , whose web sites seem - almost always - to be " spot on " technically , informationally &amp; operationally.How can this " 95 \ % " statistic have any meaning or usefullness ? We must ask : " Can you break that down ?
" ( eg , by topic , field , application area , etc .
) There 's way too much data out there on the question,for a single number to be at all useful , except - possibly- by commercial sites , who might try to convince usthat [ only ] their sites have non-bogus content... : -./ ( Now , I 'll see if there are any break-downs of this statistic,eg , by reading the cited report... : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can think of several areas, whose web sites seem - almost always - to be "spot on" technically, informationally &amp; operationally.How can this "95\%" statistic have any meaning or usefullness?We must ask: "Can you break that down?
" (eg, by topic, field, application area, etc.
)There's way too much data out there on the question,for a single number to be at all useful, except - possibly- by commercial sites, who might try to convince usthat [only] their sites have non-bogus content... :-./(Now, I'll see if there are any break-downs of this statistic,eg, by reading the cited report... :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051518</id>
	<title>Old news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265544060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In related news, approximately 90\% of the cells in the human body are bacteria. Fortunately for us, the human body has an effective immune system. When are computers going to get one?
<br> <br>
In human terms, the majority of computers have AIDS. And we all know where they caught it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In related news , approximately 90 \ % of the cells in the human body are bacteria .
Fortunately for us , the human body has an effective immune system .
When are computers going to get one ?
In human terms , the majority of computers have AIDS .
And we all know where they caught it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In related news, approximately 90\% of the cells in the human body are bacteria.
Fortunately for us, the human body has an effective immune system.
When are computers going to get one?
In human terms, the majority of computers have AIDS.
And we all know where they caught it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051932</id>
	<title>Well there are a lot of sites within sites</title>
	<author>3seas</author>
	<datestamp>1265551800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I discovered wit on of my sites a few years ago, someone had installed a site within mine and in investigating it I discovered there are plenty other siets with teh same issue, many even on Source Forge.</p><p>My advice is to do an inventory of the files on your site, to see if you to have such a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I discovered wit on of my sites a few years ago , someone had installed a site within mine and in investigating it I discovered there are plenty other siets with teh same issue , many even on Source Forge.My advice is to do an inventory of the files on your site , to see if you to have such a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I discovered wit on of my sites a few years ago, someone had installed a site within mine and in investigating it I discovered there are plenty other siets with teh same issue, many even on Source Forge.My advice is to do an inventory of the files on your site, to see if you to have such a problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051564</id>
	<title>Bogus huh? See you in court.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265545020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't write that the United Kingdom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't write that the United Kingdom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't write that the United Kingdom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052422</id>
	<title>Re:Replace "UGC" with "Usenet"</title>
	<author>ascari</author>
	<datestamp>1265558460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Luckily<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is the exception to this trend. It's good to know you can trust the posts here to be accurate and objective.
<p>
And by the way: Want to get ripped? I got ripped in 4 weeks. Learn how!
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Luckily / .
is the exception to this trend .
It 's good to know you can trust the posts here to be accurate and objective .
And by the way : Want to get ripped ?
I got ripped in 4 weeks .
Learn how !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Luckily /.
is the exception to this trend.
It's good to know you can trust the posts here to be accurate and objective.
And by the way: Want to get ripped?
I got ripped in 4 weeks.
Learn how!
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31054814</id>
	<title>Re:This just in</title>
	<author>electrostatic</author>
	<datestamp>1265537220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This comment is bogus.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This comment is bogus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This comment is bogus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051392</id>
	<title>Want to get ripped?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265541960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got ripped in 2 weeks. learn how with secret juice formula.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got ripped in 2 weeks .
learn how with secret juice formula .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got ripped in 2 weeks.
learn how with secret juice formula.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051902</id>
	<title>Re:So many floating ads in the first link</title>
	<author>vtcodger</author>
	<datestamp>1265551260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For me in konqueror, the site rendered in text that was overwritten in a few seconds by a pure black page with a couple of itsy white boxes with green text which then morphed into a pure featureless white page with no scrollbars.  Does that count as "bogus and/or spam?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For me in konqueror , the site rendered in text that was overwritten in a few seconds by a pure black page with a couple of itsy white boxes with green text which then morphed into a pure featureless white page with no scrollbars .
Does that count as " bogus and/or spam ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me in konqueror, the site rendered in text that was overwritten in a few seconds by a pure black page with a couple of itsy white boxes with green text which then morphed into a pure featureless white page with no scrollbars.
Does that count as "bogus and/or spam?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31053640</id>
	<title>Re:Want to get ripped?  -  "Ripped off" that is!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265570820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Ripped off" is more accurate!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ripped off " is more accurate !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ripped off" is more accurate!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051624</id>
	<title>So Sturgeon was right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265546160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Ninety percent of everything is crud."</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's\_Law" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's\_Law</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ninety percent of everything is crud .
" http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon 's \ _Law [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ninety percent of everything is crud.
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's\_Law [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051856</id>
	<title>Re:This just in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265550420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anonymity comes into play I suspect. I'm not a psychologist though. It makes me wonder if there will be any attempt (or anyone with the compute power and gumption is more accurate I suppose) to fact check Wikipedia. I'm rather curious as to how that will turn out if it is done in a non-biased and total in situ way. I imagine it would take a great deal of work and then there are people who will lay claim as to it being constantly changed but the point that I'm considering is what is the accuracy level at a particular moment in time. I'm not interested in how accurate it may be in the future, just the now.</p><p>I don't actually hold any opinion on its accuracy and I refer to it for my own needs quite frequently. I'm mostly curious as it is one of the largest sites with user generated content and it holds an authoritative position in some circles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anonymity comes into play I suspect .
I 'm not a psychologist though .
It makes me wonder if there will be any attempt ( or anyone with the compute power and gumption is more accurate I suppose ) to fact check Wikipedia .
I 'm rather curious as to how that will turn out if it is done in a non-biased and total in situ way .
I imagine it would take a great deal of work and then there are people who will lay claim as to it being constantly changed but the point that I 'm considering is what is the accuracy level at a particular moment in time .
I 'm not interested in how accurate it may be in the future , just the now.I do n't actually hold any opinion on its accuracy and I refer to it for my own needs quite frequently .
I 'm mostly curious as it is one of the largest sites with user generated content and it holds an authoritative position in some circles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anonymity comes into play I suspect.
I'm not a psychologist though.
It makes me wonder if there will be any attempt (or anyone with the compute power and gumption is more accurate I suppose) to fact check Wikipedia.
I'm rather curious as to how that will turn out if it is done in a non-biased and total in situ way.
I imagine it would take a great deal of work and then there are people who will lay claim as to it being constantly changed but the point that I'm considering is what is the accuracy level at a particular moment in time.
I'm not interested in how accurate it may be in the future, just the now.I don't actually hold any opinion on its accuracy and I refer to it for my own needs quite frequently.
I'm mostly curious as it is one of the largest sites with user generated content and it holds an authoritative position in some circles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051426</id>
	<title>So many floating ads in the first link</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265542380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think I've seen so many floating ads in a theoretically-legitimate site before.  When I opened it, it grayed out the window and popped up trying to get me to fill out something...scrolling around, the mouse runs into these little green underlined words that pops up an ad thing you have to click to close...and after about twenty seconds, another floating window scrolled down the screen and parked in the middle.<br> <br>That's a little too much cruft for me.  They can keep their content, I don't want it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think I 've seen so many floating ads in a theoretically-legitimate site before .
When I opened it , it grayed out the window and popped up trying to get me to fill out something...scrolling around , the mouse runs into these little green underlined words that pops up an ad thing you have to click to close...and after about twenty seconds , another floating window scrolled down the screen and parked in the middle .
That 's a little too much cruft for me .
They can keep their content , I do n't want it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think I've seen so many floating ads in a theoretically-legitimate site before.
When I opened it, it grayed out the window and popped up trying to get me to fill out something...scrolling around, the mouse runs into these little green underlined words that pops up an ad thing you have to click to close...and after about twenty seconds, another floating window scrolled down the screen and parked in the middle.
That's a little too much cruft for me.
They can keep their content, I don't want it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051516</id>
	<title>The message...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265544060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The subtext of this article is that you should forget about letting users create content on the Internet, because all they do is create junk and try to scam good honest people.  Just leave the content creation to the institutions, and media conglomerates who know how to do it.  It's safer that way, and you'll like it.</p><p>Well, I don't care if 99\% of user-generated content it is crap; people need to be free to create it, because some individual in the other 1\% may just come up with the cure for cancer, and despite whatever it does to Big Pharma's profits, everyone needs to be able to hear about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The subtext of this article is that you should forget about letting users create content on the Internet , because all they do is create junk and try to scam good honest people .
Just leave the content creation to the institutions , and media conglomerates who know how to do it .
It 's safer that way , and you 'll like it.Well , I do n't care if 99 \ % of user-generated content it is crap ; people need to be free to create it , because some individual in the other 1 \ % may just come up with the cure for cancer , and despite whatever it does to Big Pharma 's profits , everyone needs to be able to hear about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The subtext of this article is that you should forget about letting users create content on the Internet, because all they do is create junk and try to scam good honest people.
Just leave the content creation to the institutions, and media conglomerates who know how to do it.
It's safer that way, and you'll like it.Well, I don't care if 99\% of user-generated content it is crap; people need to be free to create it, because some individual in the other 1\% may just come up with the cure for cancer, and despite whatever it does to Big Pharma's profits, everyone needs to be able to hear about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052648</id>
	<title>Re:Want to get ripped?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265561160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the world's problems are due to the juice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the world 's problems are due to the juice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the world's problems are due to the juice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051506</id>
	<title>Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent.</title>
	<author>Yaur</author>
	<datestamp>1265543880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>More likely they are generalizing the activity they are seeing on their fake/honey pot sites on the internet as a whole.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More likely they are generalizing the activity they are seeing on their fake/honey pot sites on the internet as a whole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More likely they are generalizing the activity they are seeing on their fake/honey pot sites on the internet as a whole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052324</id>
	<title>Re:This just in</title>
	<author>gumbi west</author>
	<datestamp>1265557440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nature did <a href="http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038\_3-5997332.html" title="cnet.com">a study</a> [cnet.com] and found Wikipedia was slightly less reliable than Britannica. The editors of Britannica objected to the methods, and I'm not sure I like them ether, but I think it was an honest attempt. I think all of the articles were science articles and this is from 2005, so it is not exactly what you were asking for (its not 2010).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nature did a study [ cnet.com ] and found Wikipedia was slightly less reliable than Britannica .
The editors of Britannica objected to the methods , and I 'm not sure I like them ether , but I think it was an honest attempt .
I think all of the articles were science articles and this is from 2005 , so it is not exactly what you were asking for ( its not 2010 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nature did a study [cnet.com] and found Wikipedia was slightly less reliable than Britannica.
The editors of Britannica objected to the methods, and I'm not sure I like them ether, but I think it was an honest attempt.
I think all of the articles were science articles and this is from 2005, so it is not exactly what you were asking for (its not 2010).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051652</id>
	<title>Not so staggering...</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1265546640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... a staggering 95\% of User Generated Content is either malicious in nature or spam.</p></div><p>Considering 95\% of internet users are malicious (see <a href="http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/" title="penny-arcade.com" rel="nofollow">GIFT</a> [penny-arcade.com]), it's hardly staggering that 95\% of user generated content is malicious too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... a staggering 95 \ % of User Generated Content is either malicious in nature or spam.Considering 95 \ % of internet users are malicious ( see GIFT [ penny-arcade.com ] ) , it 's hardly staggering that 95 \ % of user generated content is malicious too .
: p</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... a staggering 95\% of User Generated Content is either malicious in nature or spam.Considering 95\% of internet users are malicious (see GIFT [penny-arcade.com]), it's hardly staggering that 95\% of user generated content is malicious too.
:p
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051390</id>
	<title>This just in</title>
	<author>Shadow of Eternity</author>
	<datestamp>1265541960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Animals shit in ~95\% of their habitat...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Animals shit in ~ 95 \ % of their habitat.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Animals shit in ~95\% of their habitat...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051594</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>jlintern</author>
	<datestamp>1265545500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In human terms, the majority of computers have AIDS. And we all know where they caught it.</p></div><p>Your mom?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In human terms , the majority of computers have AIDS .
And we all know where they caught it.Your mom ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In human terms, the majority of computers have AIDS.
And we all know where they caught it.Your mom?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051394</id>
	<title>Let me be the first to post that this is BS.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265541960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is so untrue. There is value in what I write.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is so untrue .
There is value in what I write .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is so untrue.
There is value in what I write.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31055642</id>
	<title>Re:This is slashdot</title>
	<author>justin12345</author>
	<datestamp>1265542620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reason people mod funny topics Insightful or Informative is that those are both karmically positive mods. Funny is neutral. Off topic, Troll, and Flaimbait are karmically negative. I'm not sure about Overrated and Underrated, they might be karmically neutral too. So when some mod wants to give someone good karma for telling a funny joke, or if modding a joke "Insightful" increases the funniness of the joke, they tend to do so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason people mod funny topics Insightful or Informative is that those are both karmically positive mods .
Funny is neutral .
Off topic , Troll , and Flaimbait are karmically negative .
I 'm not sure about Overrated and Underrated , they might be karmically neutral too .
So when some mod wants to give someone good karma for telling a funny joke , or if modding a joke " Insightful " increases the funniness of the joke , they tend to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason people mod funny topics Insightful or Informative is that those are both karmically positive mods.
Funny is neutral.
Off topic, Troll, and Flaimbait are karmically negative.
I'm not sure about Overrated and Underrated, they might be karmically neutral too.
So when some mod wants to give someone good karma for telling a funny joke, or if modding a joke "Insightful" increases the funniness of the joke, they tend to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052404</id>
	<title>Re:This just in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265558280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Animals go in the <i>corner</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Animals go in the corner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Animals go in the corner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051976</id>
	<title>Re:So Sturgeon was right</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1265552820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And don't forget the important corollary (trivial to prove): 111.1111\% of crud is everything.</p><p>So, if you spew more crud than your share, you'll get everything you want! At least, it seems to work that way for a lot of political figures.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And do n't forget the important corollary ( trivial to prove ) : 111.1111 \ % of crud is everything.So , if you spew more crud than your share , you 'll get everything you want !
At least , it seems to work that way for a lot of political figures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And don't forget the important corollary (trivial to prove): 111.1111\% of crud is everything.So, if you spew more crud than your share, you'll get everything you want!
At least, it seems to work that way for a lot of political figures.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051854</id>
	<title>Fags are draining our resources</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265550360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you blame the current weakness of the economy on a failure of our healthcare system you have no choice but to hold the fags as partially at fault.<br> <br>The fags are disease ridden creatures who's lifestyle only incurs more disease with no potential gains for society.<br> <br>Will you join me in a movement to rid our nation of fags for the betterment of man kind? They are the root cause of failure in our society. This can not be left to stand.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you blame the current weakness of the economy on a failure of our healthcare system you have no choice but to hold the fags as partially at fault .
The fags are disease ridden creatures who 's lifestyle only incurs more disease with no potential gains for society .
Will you join me in a movement to rid our nation of fags for the betterment of man kind ?
They are the root cause of failure in our society .
This can not be left to stand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you blame the current weakness of the economy on a failure of our healthcare system you have no choice but to hold the fags as partially at fault.
The fags are disease ridden creatures who's lifestyle only incurs more disease with no potential gains for society.
Will you join me in a movement to rid our nation of fags for the betterment of man kind?
They are the root cause of failure in our society.
This can not be left to stand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051880</id>
	<title>Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265550900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like CNN, Slashdot , Wired etc. filled of biased articles, advertisement, false information and countless comments spitting out useless opinions by clueless millions of users.</p><p>It's called the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like CNN , Slashdot , Wired etc .
filled of biased articles , advertisement , false information and countless comments spitting out useless opinions by clueless millions of users.It 's called the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like CNN, Slashdot , Wired etc.
filled of biased articles, advertisement, false information and countless comments spitting out useless opinions by clueless millions of users.It's called the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051416</id>
	<title>It might be true, but it's also irrelevent.</title>
	<author>onion2k</author>
	<datestamp>1265542320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>95\% of user-generated posts on Web sites are spam or malicious.</p></div></blockquote><p>The fact is that there are millions of old blogs, unused forums, ancient guestbooks, etc that are easy to spam automatically. While it might very well be true that 95\% of comments on the internet are spam of some sort, they're probably <i>read</i> by a tiny fraction of internet users. People tend to stick to about a dozen big sites that get very little rubbish posted on them at all.</p><p>Car analogy: 95\% of cars are rusty old heaps of crap that can't move. Thankfully they're in scrapyards and not on the roads.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>95 \ % of user-generated posts on Web sites are spam or malicious.The fact is that there are millions of old blogs , unused forums , ancient guestbooks , etc that are easy to spam automatically .
While it might very well be true that 95 \ % of comments on the internet are spam of some sort , they 're probably read by a tiny fraction of internet users .
People tend to stick to about a dozen big sites that get very little rubbish posted on them at all.Car analogy : 95 \ % of cars are rusty old heaps of crap that ca n't move .
Thankfully they 're in scrapyards and not on the roads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>95\% of user-generated posts on Web sites are spam or malicious.The fact is that there are millions of old blogs, unused forums, ancient guestbooks, etc that are easy to spam automatically.
While it might very well be true that 95\% of comments on the internet are spam of some sort, they're probably read by a tiny fraction of internet users.
People tend to stick to about a dozen big sites that get very little rubbish posted on them at all.Car analogy: 95\% of cars are rusty old heaps of crap that can't move.
Thankfully they're in scrapyards and not on the roads.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052722</id>
	<title>Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent.</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1265562000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That makes it sound a little too innocuous for my tastes.  It's not like 95\% of emails are spam, but they're all sitting on a server somewhere and no one has to deal with them, so it's fine.  For your car analogy to work for me, it would have to be more like "95\% of cars are rusty old heaps of crap that can't move. They're littering the highways, but we can steer around them."
</p><p>My mail server is seeing a little less than this-- only 85\% of incoming email is spam.  Still, that means that I have to filter all of that, and meanwhile it takes up storage space and eats small amounts of bandwidth.  Every once in a while something gets through, plus valid emails get filtered so I still have to sort through my junk mailbox.  It's not killing me or anything, but let's not pretend like this isn't a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That makes it sound a little too innocuous for my tastes .
It 's not like 95 \ % of emails are spam , but they 're all sitting on a server somewhere and no one has to deal with them , so it 's fine .
For your car analogy to work for me , it would have to be more like " 95 \ % of cars are rusty old heaps of crap that ca n't move .
They 're littering the highways , but we can steer around them .
" My mail server is seeing a little less than this-- only 85 \ % of incoming email is spam .
Still , that means that I have to filter all of that , and meanwhile it takes up storage space and eats small amounts of bandwidth .
Every once in a while something gets through , plus valid emails get filtered so I still have to sort through my junk mailbox .
It 's not killing me or anything , but let 's not pretend like this is n't a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That makes it sound a little too innocuous for my tastes.
It's not like 95\% of emails are spam, but they're all sitting on a server somewhere and no one has to deal with them, so it's fine.
For your car analogy to work for me, it would have to be more like "95\% of cars are rusty old heaps of crap that can't move.
They're littering the highways, but we can steer around them.
"
My mail server is seeing a little less than this-- only 85\% of incoming email is spam.
Still, that means that I have to filter all of that, and meanwhile it takes up storage space and eats small amounts of bandwidth.
Every once in a while something gets through, plus valid emails get filtered so I still have to sort through my junk mailbox.
It's not killing me or anything, but let's not pretend like this isn't a problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051438</id>
	<title>And after you get ripped ...</title>
	<author>DeadDecoy</author>
	<datestamp>1265542560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>buy this deluxe duct tape developed by nasa scientists to put yourself back together again. Just three easy installments of $99.99.</htmltext>
<tokenext>buy this deluxe duct tape developed by nasa scientists to put yourself back together again .
Just three easy installments of $ 99.99 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>buy this deluxe duct tape developed by nasa scientists to put yourself back together again.
Just three easy installments of $99.99.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052242</id>
	<title>Re:This is slashdot</title>
	<author>Dilligent</author>
	<datestamp>1265556480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>+5 Insightful, not Funny, nope.. insightful, only on slashdot could such a thing happen.
Part of the reason i love it as much as i do, oh and while you're here:
I'm a prince from the far lands of absurdistan and would like to ask if you would like to [insert random passage of text here]</htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 5 Insightful , not Funny , nope.. insightful , only on slashdot could such a thing happen .
Part of the reason i love it as much as i do , oh and while you 're here : I 'm a prince from the far lands of absurdistan and would like to ask if you would like to [ insert random passage of text here ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+5 Insightful, not Funny, nope.. insightful, only on slashdot could such a thing happen.
Part of the reason i love it as much as i do, oh and while you're here:
I'm a prince from the far lands of absurdistan and would like to ask if you would like to [insert random passage of text here]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051942</id>
	<title>But internet is growing!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265551980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Almost all sites are spam (of the kind that steals old urls) or redirectors to malware places.<br>Remember next time when some fool announces proudly that internet just reached a bazillion of pages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost all sites are spam ( of the kind that steals old urls ) or redirectors to malware places.Remember next time when some fool announces proudly that internet just reached a bazillion of pages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost all sites are spam (of the kind that steals old urls) or redirectors to malware places.Remember next time when some fool announces proudly that internet just reached a bazillion of pages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052346</id>
	<title>Re:This is slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265557680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No..... this is SPARTA!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No..... this is SPARTA ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No..... this is SPARTA!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051486</id>
	<title>CAN'T FIND PENIS ENLARGEMENT ANYMORE!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265543640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are right ! There is so much rubbish on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. nowadays, I can not even find penis enlargement comments anymore<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are right !
There is so much rubbish on / .
nowadays , I can not even find penis enlargement comments anymore : - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are right !
There is so much rubbish on /.
nowadays, I can not even find penis enlargement comments anymore :-(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051504</id>
	<title>40 000 000 sites per hour?</title>
	<author>nicknamenotavailable</author>
	<datestamp>1265543880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Every single hour the Internet HoneyGrid scans some 40 million websites for malicious code as well as 10 million emails for unwanted content and malicious code.</p></div><p>So 40 million sites per hour is 960 million sites per day. While wikipedia says that there over <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World\_Wide\_Web#Statistics" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">25 billion pages</a> [wikipedia.org] but can that number be accurate?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every single hour the Internet HoneyGrid scans some 40 million websites for malicious code as well as 10 million emails for unwanted content and malicious code.So 40 million sites per hour is 960 million sites per day .
While wikipedia says that there over 25 billion pages [ wikipedia.org ] but can that number be accurate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every single hour the Internet HoneyGrid scans some 40 million websites for malicious code as well as 10 million emails for unwanted content and malicious code.So 40 million sites per hour is 960 million sites per day.
While wikipedia says that there over 25 billion pages [wikipedia.org] but can that number be accurate?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051826</id>
	<title>Domain hijacking</title>
	<author>horza</author>
	<datestamp>1265549520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you use an ISP that hijacks unregistered domains, such as Virgin, to land you on their search page then that statistic goes up to 99.99\%</p><p>Phillip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you use an ISP that hijacks unregistered domains , such as Virgin , to land you on their search page then that statistic goes up to 99.99 \ % Phillip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you use an ISP that hijacks unregistered domains, such as Virgin, to land you on their search page then that statistic goes up to 99.99\%Phillip.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052806</id>
	<title>Re:71\% of statistics are useless</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1265563320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14\% of people know that." -Homer</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Oh , people can come up with statistics to prove anything .
14 \ % of people know that .
" -Homer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything.
14\% of people know that.
" -Homer</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051468</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051634</id>
	<title>And of the rest...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265546280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Out of the 5\% that are not generated by spambots, 99\% is still generated by idiots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Out of the 5 \ % that are not generated by spambots , 99 \ % is still generated by idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Out of the 5\% that are not generated by spambots, 99\% is still generated by idiots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31055712</id>
	<title>Re:This just in</title>
	<author>PaganRitual</author>
	<datestamp>1265543280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you've slightly missed the point. When they say bogus they don't mean the content on a site like Wikipedia, although that site provides a useful example to explain my point. Try to go to Wikipedia, except do a typo.</p><p><a href="http://www.wikapedia.org/" title="wikapedia.org">http://www.wikapedia.org/</a> [wikapedia.org]<br><a href="http://www.wikipeedia.org/" title="wikipeedia.org">http://www.wikipeedia.org/</a> [wikipeedia.org]<br><a href="http://www.wickipedia.org/" title="wickipedia.org">http://www.wickipedia.org/</a> [wickipedia.org]<br><a href="http://www.wikepedia.org/" title="wikepedia.org">http://www.wikepedia.org/</a> [wikepedia.org]</p><p>I imagine this is likely to be what they're talking about when they say bogus or a scam. Take any of your favourite websites and slightly misspell the URL. Then extrapolate out over everyones favourite, popular websites. Then realise that there are probably dozens of variations for each one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 've slightly missed the point .
When they say bogus they do n't mean the content on a site like Wikipedia , although that site provides a useful example to explain my point .
Try to go to Wikipedia , except do a typo.http : //www.wikapedia.org/ [ wikapedia.org ] http : //www.wikipeedia.org/ [ wikipeedia.org ] http : //www.wickipedia.org/ [ wickipedia.org ] http : //www.wikepedia.org/ [ wikepedia.org ] I imagine this is likely to be what they 're talking about when they say bogus or a scam .
Take any of your favourite websites and slightly misspell the URL .
Then extrapolate out over everyones favourite , popular websites .
Then realise that there are probably dozens of variations for each one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you've slightly missed the point.
When they say bogus they don't mean the content on a site like Wikipedia, although that site provides a useful example to explain my point.
Try to go to Wikipedia, except do a typo.http://www.wikapedia.org/ [wikapedia.org]http://www.wikipeedia.org/ [wikipeedia.org]http://www.wickipedia.org/ [wickipedia.org]http://www.wikepedia.org/ [wikepedia.org]I imagine this is likely to be what they're talking about when they say bogus or a scam.
Take any of your favourite websites and slightly misspell the URL.
Then extrapolate out over everyones favourite, popular websites.
Then realise that there are probably dozens of variations for each one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051840</id>
	<title>HAHA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265549880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>95\% of KDawson generated content is Bullshit</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>95 \ % of KDawson generated content is Bullshit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>95\% of KDawson generated content is Bullshit</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31056672</id>
	<title>Re:just a cheap shot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265552160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is kdawson the new Roland piquipalle? (I don't remember the spelling. I've been gone for a while)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is kdawson the new Roland piquipalle ?
( I do n't remember the spelling .
I 've been gone for a while )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is kdawson the new Roland piquipalle?
(I don't remember the spelling.
I've been gone for a while)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051496</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052240</id>
	<title>Riiight...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265556480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry.  That's like going to a municipal dump, pointing at the fields of waste and declaring that 95\% of what Americans eat is plastic.  The problem with this statement is that it includes this garbage in "user generated content".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry .
That 's like going to a municipal dump , pointing at the fields of waste and declaring that 95 \ % of what Americans eat is plastic .
The problem with this statement is that it includes this garbage in " user generated content " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry.
That's like going to a municipal dump, pointing at the fields of waste and declaring that 95\% of what Americans eat is plastic.
The problem with this statement is that it includes this garbage in "user generated content".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051830</id>
	<title>Kill Bill Gates Song</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265549700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apropos of nothing.<br>http://soundclick.com/share?songid=8720416</p><p>Spam, perhaps, but not necessarily bogus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apropos of nothing.http : //soundclick.com/share ? songid = 8720416Spam , perhaps , but not necessarily bogus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apropos of nothing.http://soundclick.com/share?songid=8720416Spam, perhaps, but not necessarily bogus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31055490</id>
	<title>Re:This just in</title>
	<author>justin12345</author>
	<datestamp>1265541780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I seem to remember that a while back <b>someone</b> (as they say on Fark.com, I'm too drunk to look it up) did a comparison of Encyclopedia Britannica to Wikipedia. Their conclusions were based on a random sampling of 500 topics, with the wiki compared to the Brit article of the same subject. The conclusion was that Britannica contained slightly less errors per entry, but significantly less data per entry as well. The study didn't address the issue of Wikipedia's comparatively massive number of entries, and it didn't address the fact that a large number of the wiki articles are about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star\_Wars\_Kid" title="wikipedia.org">topics Britannica would be foolish to waste the paper to print.</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to remember that a while back someone ( as they say on Fark.com , I 'm too drunk to look it up ) did a comparison of Encyclopedia Britannica to Wikipedia .
Their conclusions were based on a random sampling of 500 topics , with the wiki compared to the Brit article of the same subject .
The conclusion was that Britannica contained slightly less errors per entry , but significantly less data per entry as well .
The study did n't address the issue of Wikipedia 's comparatively massive number of entries , and it did n't address the fact that a large number of the wiki articles are about topics Britannica would be foolish to waste the paper to print .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to remember that a while back someone (as they say on Fark.com, I'm too drunk to look it up) did a comparison of Encyclopedia Britannica to Wikipedia.
Their conclusions were based on a random sampling of 500 topics, with the wiki compared to the Brit article of the same subject.
The conclusion was that Britannica contained slightly less errors per entry, but significantly less data per entry as well.
The study didn't address the issue of Wikipedia's comparatively massive number of entries, and it didn't address the fact that a large number of the wiki articles are about topics Britannica would be foolish to waste the paper to print.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051970</id>
	<title>Replace "UGC" with "Usenet"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265552700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've seen this before, with Usenet, BBS's, MUD's, and Email. The advertisers, and the trolls, find it easy to spew their material across many thousands of targets, and get enough money or gratification from doing so that it funds their efforts. It doesn't even have to make money: they just have to believe that it \_can\_ make money, and the professionals will simply continue.</p><p>Whatever would make anyone think that "User Generated Content" forums would be any different?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've seen this before , with Usenet , BBS 's , MUD 's , and Email .
The advertisers , and the trolls , find it easy to spew their material across many thousands of targets , and get enough money or gratification from doing so that it funds their efforts .
It does n't even have to make money : they just have to believe that it \ _can \ _ make money , and the professionals will simply continue.Whatever would make anyone think that " User Generated Content " forums would be any different ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've seen this before, with Usenet, BBS's, MUD's, and Email.
The advertisers, and the trolls, find it easy to spew their material across many thousands of targets, and get enough money or gratification from doing so that it funds their efforts.
It doesn't even have to make money: they just have to believe that it \_can\_ make money, and the professionals will simply continue.Whatever would make anyone think that "User Generated Content" forums would be any different?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052142</id>
	<title>Re:The message...</title>
	<author>jgrahn</author>
	<datestamp>1265555340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The subtext of this article is that you should forget about letting users create content on the Internet, because all they do is create junk and try to scam good honest people. Just leave the content creation to the institutions, and media conglomerates who know how to do it. It's safer that way, and you'll like it.</p></div></blockquote><p>You're reading too much into it, and you are also misled by the misquote in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,/ title.
The article said <i>"95\% of user-generated posts on Web sites are spam or malicious"</i>,
probably meaning postings in forums, "comments" and stuff like that.
They're not saying plain web pages by *authors* who aren't faceless corporation drones
are crap.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The subtext of this article is that you should forget about letting users create content on the Internet , because all they do is create junk and try to scam good honest people .
Just leave the content creation to the institutions , and media conglomerates who know how to do it .
It 's safer that way , and you 'll like it.You 're reading too much into it , and you are also misled by the misquote in the ,/ title .
The article said " 95 \ % of user-generated posts on Web sites are spam or malicious " , probably meaning postings in forums , " comments " and stuff like that .
They 're not saying plain web pages by * authors * who are n't faceless corporation drones are crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The subtext of this article is that you should forget about letting users create content on the Internet, because all they do is create junk and try to scam good honest people.
Just leave the content creation to the institutions, and media conglomerates who know how to do it.
It's safer that way, and you'll like it.You're reading too much into it, and you are also misled by the misquote in the ,/ title.
The article said "95\% of user-generated posts on Web sites are spam or malicious",
probably meaning postings in forums, "comments" and stuff like that.
They're not saying plain web pages by *authors* who aren't faceless corporation drones
are crap.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051474</id>
	<title>Slashdot to coomaria: stop submitting crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265543340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't bother trying to RTFA, this story was posted as a way of telling <a href="http://www.slashdot.org/" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">coomaria</a> [slashdot.org] to stop submitting crap because the crap he/she/it submits represents 95\% of all the crap submissions on Slashdot. Seriously, just check out the number of rejected submissions by coomaria.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't bother trying to RTFA , this story was posted as a way of telling coomaria [ slashdot.org ] to stop submitting crap because the crap he/she/it submits represents 95 \ % of all the crap submissions on Slashdot .
Seriously , just check out the number of rejected submissions by coomaria .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't bother trying to RTFA, this story was posted as a way of telling coomaria [slashdot.org] to stop submitting crap because the crap he/she/it submits represents 95\% of all the crap submissions on Slashdot.
Seriously, just check out the number of rejected submissions by coomaria.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052124</id>
	<title>Re:This just in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265554980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It gets fact checked everyday by the swarm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It gets fact checked everyday by the swarm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It gets fact checked everyday by the swarm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051606</id>
	<title>90\% of everything is crap...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265545620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...no wait, make that 95\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...no wait , make that 95 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...no wait, make that 95\%.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051688</id>
	<title>95\% bogus?</title>
	<author>el\_jake</author>
	<datestamp>1265547180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just like the posts on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like the posts on / .
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like the posts on /.
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051468</id>
	<title>71\% of statistics are useless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265543280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>71\% of statistics are useless<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>71 \ % of statistics are useless .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>71\% of statistics are useless ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31055858</id>
	<title>Re:This just in</title>
	<author>VoltageX</author>
	<datestamp>1265544360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry to hijack this, but <a href="http://securitylabs.websense.com/content/Assets/WSL\_ReportQ3Q4FNL.PDF" title="websense.com" rel="nofollow">http://securitylabs.websense.com/content/Assets/WSL\_ReportQ3Q4FNL.PDF</a> [websense.com] seems to be the direct link to the paper.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to hijack this , but http : //securitylabs.websense.com/content/Assets/WSL \ _ReportQ3Q4FNL.PDF [ websense.com ] seems to be the direct link to the paper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to hijack this, but http://securitylabs.websense.com/content/Assets/WSL\_ReportQ3Q4FNL.PDF [websense.com] seems to be the direct link to the paper.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051458</id>
	<title>Isn't it obvious?</title>
	<author>golden age villain</author>
	<datestamp>1265542980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I reached the same conclusion reading slashdot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I reached the same conclusion reading slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I reached the same conclusion reading slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31053532</id>
	<title>What about "numbers posts"?</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1265569680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>By the way, what about "numbers posts"? There are cases of spam posts being made that are very similar in style to the transmissions of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers\_station" title="wikipedia.org">numbers stations</a> [wikipedia.org] - just strings of short blocks of numbers. Has anyone ever found out what those are about? My guess is that it's some botnet's C&amp;C channel but that's just a guess.</htmltext>
<tokenext>By the way , what about " numbers posts " ?
There are cases of spam posts being made that are very similar in style to the transmissions of numbers stations [ wikipedia.org ] - just strings of short blocks of numbers .
Has anyone ever found out what those are about ?
My guess is that it 's some botnet 's C&amp;C channel but that 's just a guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By the way, what about "numbers posts"?
There are cases of spam posts being made that are very similar in style to the transmissions of numbers stations [wikipedia.org] - just strings of short blocks of numbers.
Has anyone ever found out what those are about?
My guess is that it's some botnet's C&amp;C channel but that's just a guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052188</id>
	<title>Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265555760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><tt>Irrelevent [ir'-rel-e-vent] - Adjective:</tt><br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The wasteful use or application of a cooling device when not strictly necessary.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <b>USAGE:</b> <i>"Larry left the air conditioning unit on all throughout winter; its power consumption was <b>irrelevent</b>."</i><br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <b>ORIGIN:</b> Teh Intarwebz.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Irrelevent [ ir'-rel-e-vent ] - Adjective :         The wasteful use or application of a cooling device when not strictly necessary .
        USAGE : " Larry left the air conditioning unit on all throughout winter ; its power consumption was irrelevent .
"         ORIGIN : Teh Intarwebz .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Irrelevent [ir'-rel-e-vent] - Adjective:
        The wasteful use or application of a cooling device when not strictly necessary.
        USAGE: "Larry left the air conditioning unit on all throughout winter; its power consumption was irrelevent.
"
        ORIGIN: Teh Intarwebz.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051496</id>
	<title>just a cheap shot</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1265543700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess that goes in hand with 95\% of kdawson's submissions being crap and not worth the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess that goes in hand with 95 \ % of kdawson 's submissions being crap and not worth the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess that goes in hand with 95\% of kdawson's submissions being crap and not worth the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31053636</id>
	<title>Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent.</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1265570760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How much of it is user generated content that's copied from one site onto a zillion others?</p></div><p>Or onto the same site.  It amazes me at the number of YouTube videos which people rip then upload back to YouTube as their own.  I like to think of this need to be the person who provides the video as "Insufficient Attention Disorder".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much of it is user generated content that 's copied from one site onto a zillion others ? Or onto the same site .
It amazes me at the number of YouTube videos which people rip then upload back to YouTube as their own .
I like to think of this need to be the person who provides the video as " Insufficient Attention Disorder " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much of it is user generated content that's copied from one site onto a zillion others?Or onto the same site.
It amazes me at the number of YouTube videos which people rip then upload back to YouTube as their own.
I like to think of this need to be the person who provides the video as "Insufficient Attention Disorder".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051628</id>
	<title>Calling spam email UGC is... disingenuous.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265546220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say that 95\% of email is commercial in nature, and not "user generated content". To me "UGC" is something that people who are actually active users (consumers as well as creators) of a service generate... not something injected into the service from outside by predators.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say that 95 \ % of email is commercial in nature , and not " user generated content " .
To me " UGC " is something that people who are actually active users ( consumers as well as creators ) of a service generate... not something injected into the service from outside by predators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say that 95\% of email is commercial in nature, and not "user generated content".
To me "UGC" is something that people who are actually active users (consumers as well as creators) of a service generate... not something injected into the service from outside by predators.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31057036</id>
	<title>Re:This just in</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1265555520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not surprised.  Wikipedia is great for niche articles like finding out what happened to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star\_Trek:\_The\_Experience" title="wikipedia.org">Star Trek, The Experience</a> [wikipedia.org].  Such niche information wouldn't be viable for Britannica to cover, but anyone with an interest can put up an article about it.  If you want real articles on things like science, DON'T GO TO AN ENCYCLOPEDIA.  They're about as good at teaching you usable science as they are teaching you how to play the flute.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not surprised .
Wikipedia is great for niche articles like finding out what happened to Star Trek , The Experience [ wikipedia.org ] .
Such niche information would n't be viable for Britannica to cover , but anyone with an interest can put up an article about it .
If you want real articles on things like science , DO N'T GO TO AN ENCYCLOPEDIA .
They 're about as good at teaching you usable science as they are teaching you how to play the flute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not surprised.
Wikipedia is great for niche articles like finding out what happened to Star Trek, The Experience [wikipedia.org].
Such niche information wouldn't be viable for Britannica to cover, but anyone with an interest can put up an article about it.
If you want real articles on things like science, DON'T GO TO AN ENCYCLOPEDIA.
They're about as good at teaching you usable science as they are teaching you how to play the flute.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051472</id>
	<title>Was going to RTFA but it's probably bogus</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1265543340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...95\% probability actually. So I didn't bother.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...95 \ % probability actually .
So I did n't bother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...95\% probability actually.
So I didn't bother.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051822</id>
	<title>Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent.</title>
	<author>dosius</author>
	<datestamp>1265549400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sturgeon's Law comes into play, as always. 90\% of everything is crud</p><p>-uso.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sturgeon 's Law comes into play , as always .
90 \ % of everything is crud-uso .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sturgeon's Law comes into play, as always.
90\% of everything is crud-uso.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052444</id>
	<title>Re:Want to get ripped?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265558760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a mother of two and I was also searching for the way to get ripped. I found the secret with two separate products that gave me the best ripped ever. I want to share it with you through this contextual ad. Don't be afraid, I have many posts backing up my claims and once the posting feature work again you too can share your experiences.</p><p>* Download "get ripped" from UseNext.<br>* Find the best price for get ripped.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a mother of two and I was also searching for the way to get ripped .
I found the secret with two separate products that gave me the best ripped ever .
I want to share it with you through this contextual ad .
Do n't be afraid , I have many posts backing up my claims and once the posting feature work again you too can share your experiences .
* Download " get ripped " from UseNext .
* Find the best price for get ripped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a mother of two and I was also searching for the way to get ripped.
I found the secret with two separate products that gave me the best ripped ever.
I want to share it with you through this contextual ad.
Don't be afraid, I have many posts backing up my claims and once the posting feature work again you too can share your experiences.
* Download "get ripped" from UseNext.
* Find the best price for get ripped.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051812</id>
	<title>Having read some blogs...</title>
	<author>shish</author>
	<datestamp>1265549160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>95\% is intentionally bad, the other 5\% is just shit</htmltext>
<tokenext>95 \ % is intentionally bad , the other 5 \ % is just shit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>95\% is intentionally bad, the other 5\% is just shit</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051566</id>
	<title>can be adequately explained by stupidity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265545080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>"95\% of User Generated Content is either malicious in nature or spam"<br><br>"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"<br><br>So I read "95\% of User Generated Content is stupid" I agree,&nbsp; count me in.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 95 \ % of User Generated Content is either malicious in nature or spam " " Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity " So I read " 95 \ % of User Generated Content is stupid " I agree ,   count me in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"95\% of User Generated Content is either malicious in nature or spam""Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"So I read "95\% of User Generated Content is stupid" I agree,  count me in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051568</id>
	<title>Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265545080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much of it is user generated content that's copied from one site onto a zillion others?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much of it is user generated content that 's copied from one site onto a zillion others ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much of it is user generated content that's copied from one site onto a zillion others?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31055834</id>
	<title>This is why ALL search engines suck.</title>
	<author>zymano</author>
	<datestamp>1265544180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Especially google.</p><p>If you search for certain topics<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,all you get are spam and $$pay sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially google.If you search for certain topics ,all you get are spam and $ $ pay sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially google.If you search for certain topics ,all you get are spam and $$pay sites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31063312</id>
	<title>Re:The message...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265659200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>5\% is a huge quantity of quality content. More than enough to justify the 95\% of junk.</p><p>But it only works if there is a way to crib the good from the junk. And Google does such a good job at this that most of the content we see is useful.</p><p>I remember the old days of Yahoo! glory, when the only way to search the web was looking thematic directories or crude search engines incapable of indexing most of the web, or give meaningful, spam- and porn-free results for most of searches. You were able to easily know how much junk was out there, because you were digging deeply into it daily.</p><p>Yeah, I know some of the younger in the audience would like to have porn for half of their search, so they could justify the huge amount of it in their browser history. Sorry, you were born too late...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>5 \ % is a huge quantity of quality content .
More than enough to justify the 95 \ % of junk.But it only works if there is a way to crib the good from the junk .
And Google does such a good job at this that most of the content we see is useful.I remember the old days of Yahoo !
glory , when the only way to search the web was looking thematic directories or crude search engines incapable of indexing most of the web , or give meaningful , spam- and porn-free results for most of searches .
You were able to easily know how much junk was out there , because you were digging deeply into it daily.Yeah , I know some of the younger in the audience would like to have porn for half of their search , so they could justify the huge amount of it in their browser history .
Sorry , you were born too late.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5\% is a huge quantity of quality content.
More than enough to justify the 95\% of junk.But it only works if there is a way to crib the good from the junk.
And Google does such a good job at this that most of the content we see is useful.I remember the old days of Yahoo!
glory, when the only way to search the web was looking thematic directories or crude search engines incapable of indexing most of the web, or give meaningful, spam- and porn-free results for most of searches.
You were able to easily know how much junk was out there, because you were digging deeply into it daily.Yeah, I know some of the younger in the audience would like to have porn for half of their search, so they could justify the huge amount of it in their browser history.
Sorry, you were born too late...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051412</id>
	<title>This is slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265542260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051420</id>
	<title>Nothing to see here. Move  along. (Bad summary)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265542320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BS in the summary.  TFA says:

</p><p>"95\% of user-generated posts on Web sites are spam or malicious."

</p><p>The user generated content is valid, it's just the "comments" sections which are getting hit by spambots.  If this is front page news, then the fact that 95\% of email is spam is news as well. Nothing to see here.  Move  along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BS in the summary .
TFA says : " 95 \ % of user-generated posts on Web sites are spam or malicious .
" The user generated content is valid , it 's just the " comments " sections which are getting hit by spambots .
If this is front page news , then the fact that 95 \ % of email is spam is news as well .
Nothing to see here .
Move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BS in the summary.
TFA says:

"95\% of user-generated posts on Web sites are spam or malicious.
"

The user generated content is valid, it's just the "comments" sections which are getting hit by spambots.
If this is front page news, then the fact that 95\% of email is spam is news as well.
Nothing to see here.
Move  along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052162</id>
	<title>Re:It might be true, but it's also irrelevent.</title>
	<author>newdsfornerds</author>
	<datestamp>1265555520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or, 95\% of American cars built in the nineteen seventies were of poor quality, therefore all American cars will always be junk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , 95 \ % of American cars built in the nineteen seventies were of poor quality , therefore all American cars will always be junk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, 95\% of American cars built in the nineteen seventies were of poor quality, therefore all American cars will always be junk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051690</id>
	<title>There,</title>
	<author>dushkin</author>
	<datestamp>1265547300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yet another reason to hate mankind.</p><p>You all suck.</p><p>Ugh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yet another reason to hate mankind.You all suck.Ugh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yet another reason to hate mankind.You all suck.Ugh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051844</id>
	<title>Re:This just in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265549880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You would probably know, smegma breath.</p><p>Anyway,</p><p>You are young yetbut the time will arrive when you will learn to judge for yourself. Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see.<br>[1845 E. A. Poe in Graham's Mag. Nov. 194]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You would probably know , smegma breath.Anyway,You are young yetbut the time will arrive when you will learn to judge for yourself .
Believe nothing you hear , and only one half that you see .
[ 1845 E. A. Poe in Graham 's Mag .
Nov. 194 ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You would probably know, smegma breath.Anyway,You are young yetbut the time will arrive when you will learn to judge for yourself.
Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see.
[1845 E. A. Poe in Graham's Mag.
Nov. 194]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051390</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31056672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31055712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31057036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31055858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31055490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31055642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31053636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31055834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31053532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31063312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31054814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31053640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_07_0126226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_0126226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31055642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_0126226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_0126226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051976
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_0126226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_0126226.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_0126226.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31063312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_0126226.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31053636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31053532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_0126226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31056672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_0126226.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_0126226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_0126226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_0126226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_0126226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31053640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_0126226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_0126226.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_0126226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051856
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052324
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31057036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31055490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31055712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31055858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31055834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31054814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31052404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_07_0126226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_07_0126226.31051628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
