<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_08_1732204</id>
	<title>A Reflection On Sun Executive Payouts For Failure</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1265616300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>With the Oracle/Sun merger finally completing at the end of January, one former Sun worker has taken the time to reflect a bit on the <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/8/985/35724">extravagant compensation and golden parachutes</a> that the former executives at Sun are receiving for failing at their jobs.  <i>"I think it's fair to say that, for all the miscues that eventually led to its demise, the company created many products and technologies of value along the way, enough so that Oracle thought it was worth it to acquire them and try to keep them going.   However, I think that it's equally fair to conclude that, after years of running losses, including about $2 billion in fiscal 2009, so that a buyout was necessary to avoid looming bankruptcy, Sun's executives did nothing to deserve lavish rewards, by any conceivable meaning of the word 'deserve.' But what actually happened is by now a familiar story. [...] And here's a prediction that I feel quite certain of: if, against expectations and my hopes, Ellison drops the ball and things start going south for Oracle, it's the employees who will suffer for it, and he'll be doing just fine."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the Oracle/Sun merger finally completing at the end of January , one former Sun worker has taken the time to reflect a bit on the extravagant compensation and golden parachutes that the former executives at Sun are receiving for failing at their jobs .
" I think it 's fair to say that , for all the miscues that eventually led to its demise , the company created many products and technologies of value along the way , enough so that Oracle thought it was worth it to acquire them and try to keep them going .
However , I think that it 's equally fair to conclude that , after years of running losses , including about $ 2 billion in fiscal 2009 , so that a buyout was necessary to avoid looming bankruptcy , Sun 's executives did nothing to deserve lavish rewards , by any conceivable meaning of the word 'deserve .
' But what actually happened is by now a familiar story .
[ ... ] And here 's a prediction that I feel quite certain of : if , against expectations and my hopes , Ellison drops the ball and things start going south for Oracle , it 's the employees who will suffer for it , and he 'll be doing just fine .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the Oracle/Sun merger finally completing at the end of January, one former Sun worker has taken the time to reflect a bit on the extravagant compensation and golden parachutes that the former executives at Sun are receiving for failing at their jobs.
"I think it's fair to say that, for all the miscues that eventually led to its demise, the company created many products and technologies of value along the way, enough so that Oracle thought it was worth it to acquire them and try to keep them going.
However, I think that it's equally fair to conclude that, after years of running losses, including about $2 billion in fiscal 2009, so that a buyout was necessary to avoid looming bankruptcy, Sun's executives did nothing to deserve lavish rewards, by any conceivable meaning of the word 'deserve.
' But what actually happened is by now a familiar story.
[...] And here's a prediction that I feel quite certain of: if, against expectations and my hopes, Ellison drops the ball and things start going south for Oracle, it's the employees who will suffer for it, and he'll be doing just fine.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31068130</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1265642880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Tell me the last time a politician voted on something they saw as political suicide?</p></div><p>You mean, voted for something which the majority of their constituents have expressly told them is not their will and are angry enough to vote against? That would be failing to be a democratic representative, so I don't see the problem. "X needs to be done but I can't do it because most people don't want me to" is a feature, not a bug of democracies.</p><p>If you really want your elected leaders to vote their "conscience" regardless of whether most of the people are against it... then you want to live in a dictatorship, not a democracy.</p><p>A far bigger problem is politicians in states with free elections voting against the supposed will of the majority (or sizeable minority) of their electorate and yet it NOT being political suicide - the majority keeps returning them to power. How does that happen?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell me the last time a politician voted on something they saw as political suicide ? You mean , voted for something which the majority of their constituents have expressly told them is not their will and are angry enough to vote against ?
That would be failing to be a democratic representative , so I do n't see the problem .
" X needs to be done but I ca n't do it because most people do n't want me to " is a feature , not a bug of democracies.If you really want your elected leaders to vote their " conscience " regardless of whether most of the people are against it... then you want to live in a dictatorship , not a democracy.A far bigger problem is politicians in states with free elections voting against the supposed will of the majority ( or sizeable minority ) of their electorate and yet it NOT being political suicide - the majority keeps returning them to power .
How does that happen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Tell me the last time a politician voted on something they saw as political suicide?You mean, voted for something which the majority of their constituents have expressly told them is not their will and are angry enough to vote against?
That would be failing to be a democratic representative, so I don't see the problem.
"X needs to be done but I can't do it because most people don't want me to" is a feature, not a bug of democracies.If you really want your elected leaders to vote their "conscience" regardless of whether most of the people are against it... then you want to live in a dictatorship, not a democracy.A far bigger problem is politicians in states with free elections voting against the supposed will of the majority (or sizeable minority) of their electorate and yet it NOT being political suicide - the majority keeps returning them to power.
How does that happen?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064424</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1265621280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If those top managers are being paid in stock instead of in dollars, then clearly they are stockholders and hence their interests are one and the same as the stockholders. Which is the entire idea behind such compensation schemes.</p><p>The real issue is that the stockholders are getting exactly what the want. Short term performance, and who cares about the long term. Since most of the shares are owned by mutual funds and so on and what they care about is how they did on last quarter's performance numbers.</p><p>That the company will go broke in 5 years is irrelevant, they just want to perform better than their competitors this quarter. And since they make up the bulk of the owners that's how it is supposed to work.</p><p>If the owners cared about long term performance they would structure compensation schemes to reflect that - mind you that is easier said than done. Short term stock price incentives, however, are just about the worst way possible to do that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If those top managers are being paid in stock instead of in dollars , then clearly they are stockholders and hence their interests are one and the same as the stockholders .
Which is the entire idea behind such compensation schemes.The real issue is that the stockholders are getting exactly what the want .
Short term performance , and who cares about the long term .
Since most of the shares are owned by mutual funds and so on and what they care about is how they did on last quarter 's performance numbers.That the company will go broke in 5 years is irrelevant , they just want to perform better than their competitors this quarter .
And since they make up the bulk of the owners that 's how it is supposed to work.If the owners cared about long term performance they would structure compensation schemes to reflect that - mind you that is easier said than done .
Short term stock price incentives , however , are just about the worst way possible to do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If those top managers are being paid in stock instead of in dollars, then clearly they are stockholders and hence their interests are one and the same as the stockholders.
Which is the entire idea behind such compensation schemes.The real issue is that the stockholders are getting exactly what the want.
Short term performance, and who cares about the long term.
Since most of the shares are owned by mutual funds and so on and what they care about is how they did on last quarter's performance numbers.That the company will go broke in 5 years is irrelevant, they just want to perform better than their competitors this quarter.
And since they make up the bulk of the owners that's how it is supposed to work.If the owners cared about long term performance they would structure compensation schemes to reflect that - mind you that is easier said than done.
Short term stock price incentives, however, are just about the worst way possible to do that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067656</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>justdrew</author>
	<datestamp>1265637480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>not necessarily, the managers can be going for short term gains (and sell their holdings) while other shareholders might prefer a more long term strategy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>not necessarily , the managers can be going for short term gains ( and sell their holdings ) while other shareholders might prefer a more long term strategy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not necessarily, the managers can be going for short term gains (and sell their holdings) while other shareholders might prefer a more long term strategy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31068028</id>
	<title>Re:Link to DailyKos diatribe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265641380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;  I didn't bother to read it<br> <br>
You couldn't possibly get through it.  It goes on and on and <i>on</i>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I did n't bother to read it You could n't possibly get through it .
It goes on and on and on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;  I didn't bother to read it 
You couldn't possibly get through it.
It goes on and on and on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31068228</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>sitarlo</author>
	<datestamp>1265644260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You sir deserve every last one of 5 score points for this post.  I would add, though, that capitalism could work much better with stringent ethical and moral requirements for top executives and politicians.  These would rule out the corruption and over-valuation that destroys so many businesses and even entire industries.  The hard thing to understand is that both thriving and failing companies are wealth opportunities for certain people.  An executive I know once told me that heavy compensation during a time a failure may be nothing more than hush money to protect the board of directors.  I don't know if that is true, but it makes sense.  Why else would you fire someone then give them millions of dollars?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You sir deserve every last one of 5 score points for this post .
I would add , though , that capitalism could work much better with stringent ethical and moral requirements for top executives and politicians .
These would rule out the corruption and over-valuation that destroys so many businesses and even entire industries .
The hard thing to understand is that both thriving and failing companies are wealth opportunities for certain people .
An executive I know once told me that heavy compensation during a time a failure may be nothing more than hush money to protect the board of directors .
I do n't know if that is true , but it makes sense .
Why else would you fire someone then give them millions of dollars ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sir deserve every last one of 5 score points for this post.
I would add, though, that capitalism could work much better with stringent ethical and moral requirements for top executives and politicians.
These would rule out the corruption and over-valuation that destroys so many businesses and even entire industries.
The hard thing to understand is that both thriving and failing companies are wealth opportunities for certain people.
An executive I know once told me that heavy compensation during a time a failure may be nothing more than hush money to protect the board of directors.
I don't know if that is true, but it makes sense.
Why else would you fire someone then give them millions of dollars?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065734</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>Zordak</author>
	<datestamp>1265626380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sometimes they collect a $1/year salary to look good</p></div><p>Well, that and by not having a salary, they totally avoid the SSM tax, which has no deductions, exemption, or credits.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes they collect a $ 1/year salary to look goodWell , that and by not having a salary , they totally avoid the SSM tax , which has no deductions , exemption , or credits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes they collect a $1/year salary to look goodWell, that and by not having a salary, they totally avoid the SSM tax, which has no deductions, exemption, or credits.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067130</id>
	<title>Institutional Investors</title>
	<author>turkeyfish</author>
	<datestamp>1265633100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>by and large just got their clocks cleaned in the current Wall Street meltdown.</p><p>The only thing that differentiates them as "savy" is that they couldn't care less as they invest OTHER PEOPLE's money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>by and large just got their clocks cleaned in the current Wall Street meltdown.The only thing that differentiates them as " savy " is that they could n't care less as they invest OTHER PEOPLE 's money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by and large just got their clocks cleaned in the current Wall Street meltdown.The only thing that differentiates them as "savy" is that they couldn't care less as they invest OTHER PEOPLE's money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064752</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the point.</title>
	<author>Romancer</author>
	<datestamp>1265622780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So why don't the other employes that are actually making the company better by designing products, manufacturing them, marketing them and selling them get anywhere near the salary that this guy gets? Compare the total salary of one person in product design that launched a family of products that nets the company millions. That's actual work. Even the guys manager that helped get the team together and "optomized workflow" had more of a hand in the company being productive and profitable than this yahoo so far from the actual company business processes that are necessary in a capatalist system. This guy was not necessary, just a leach on the company and withoout him the company would have more money and be a better supplier with better profit and productivity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why do n't the other employes that are actually making the company better by designing products , manufacturing them , marketing them and selling them get anywhere near the salary that this guy gets ?
Compare the total salary of one person in product design that launched a family of products that nets the company millions .
That 's actual work .
Even the guys manager that helped get the team together and " optomized workflow " had more of a hand in the company being productive and profitable than this yahoo so far from the actual company business processes that are necessary in a capatalist system .
This guy was not necessary , just a leach on the company and withoout him the company would have more money and be a better supplier with better profit and productivity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why don't the other employes that are actually making the company better by designing products, manufacturing them, marketing them and selling them get anywhere near the salary that this guy gets?
Compare the total salary of one person in product design that launched a family of products that nets the company millions.
That's actual work.
Even the guys manager that helped get the team together and "optomized workflow" had more of a hand in the company being productive and profitable than this yahoo so far from the actual company business processes that are necessary in a capatalist system.
This guy was not necessary, just a leach on the company and withoout him the company would have more money and be a better supplier with better profit and productivity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064398</id>
	<title>Re:Link to DailyKos diatribe?</title>
	<author>Zocalo</author>
	<datestamp>1265621160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, not that you mention it...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br> <br>

Diatribe or not (no, I didn't bother to read it), I don't think Oracle's is going to be anywhere near the kind of situation Sun ended up in for the foreseeable future.  Sun had multiple sources of direct competition across a good deal of their product range and many IT budgets just couldn't justify paying the extra cash for the few extras Sun brought to the equation.  Oracle, on the otherhand, has seen off almost all of its competition: DB2, Ingres and Informix are either history or essentially relegated to also-rans in the marketplace for high-end DB servers with paid-for support and an SLA that you could take to court if you had to.  It's going to take a screw-up of positively epic proportions for Oracle to go down the pan; "dropping the ball" wouldn't even come close...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , not that you mention it... : ) Diatribe or not ( no , I did n't bother to read it ) , I do n't think Oracle 's is going to be anywhere near the kind of situation Sun ended up in for the foreseeable future .
Sun had multiple sources of direct competition across a good deal of their product range and many IT budgets just could n't justify paying the extra cash for the few extras Sun brought to the equation .
Oracle , on the otherhand , has seen off almost all of its competition : DB2 , Ingres and Informix are either history or essentially relegated to also-rans in the marketplace for high-end DB servers with paid-for support and an SLA that you could take to court if you had to .
It 's going to take a screw-up of positively epic proportions for Oracle to go down the pan ; " dropping the ball " would n't even come close.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, not that you mention it... :) 

Diatribe or not (no, I didn't bother to read it), I don't think Oracle's is going to be anywhere near the kind of situation Sun ended up in for the foreseeable future.
Sun had multiple sources of direct competition across a good deal of their product range and many IT budgets just couldn't justify paying the extra cash for the few extras Sun brought to the equation.
Oracle, on the otherhand, has seen off almost all of its competition: DB2, Ingres and Informix are either history or essentially relegated to also-rans in the marketplace for high-end DB servers with paid-for support and an SLA that you could take to court if you had to.
It's going to take a screw-up of positively epic proportions for Oracle to go down the pan; "dropping the ball" wouldn't even come close...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064164</id>
	<title>To quote Mel: "Its good to be the King"</title>
	<author>Fallen Kell</author>
	<datestamp>1265620200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>As almost always in big business, those in control will make sure that their personal interests are met, even at the expense of the company as a whole. It is more important that the board makes sure they all get several million payout should the company fall apart.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As almost always in big business , those in control will make sure that their personal interests are met , even at the expense of the company as a whole .
It is more important that the board makes sure they all get several million payout should the company fall apart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As almost always in big business, those in control will make sure that their personal interests are met, even at the expense of the company as a whole.
It is more important that the board makes sure they all get several million payout should the company fall apart.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065326</id>
	<title>Re:To quote Mel: "Its good to be the King"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265624940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good point, although there are mechanisms which allow for transactions like this to end up similar to handing over a jacket for general shareholders to divvy up while a company's executive team walks away with millions for what are nominally the same stocks.
<br> <br>
One of my own personal lessons: when WaMu was in the dumper, I bought a few hundred shares of their stock, feeling quite certain that they would be purchased by one of the more solvent banks, and at the worst, my stocks would retain their value in a trade for the new parent company's.
<br> <br>
I was half-right.  Chase bought WaMu, paid off their executives handsomely (one guy who'd been there three weeks got $18M), and then somehow said, "We're buying all the assets, but not the liabilities."  The stock that was held by John Q. Public (i.e. me) was associated with the organization which retained all the liabilities, and is now worth just a few pennies.  I would offload it, but the cost of the transaction ($9.99) would eclipse the value of my WaMu stock.
<br> <br>
So it's all well and good to say that execs' fortunes are tied to those of their companies, but  as it turns out, even that is not entirely true.  There's always a way to game the system, and unless you're in the board room when it happens, there are very few protections out there.
<br> <br>
The cost of the lesson to me?  $600.00.  Luckily, I could afford it.  On the flip side, my grandfather was heavily invested in Enron based on his retirement fund manager's advice, and when they went down, he lost a thousand times that while their execs walked away richer than Croesus.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good point , although there are mechanisms which allow for transactions like this to end up similar to handing over a jacket for general shareholders to divvy up while a company 's executive team walks away with millions for what are nominally the same stocks .
One of my own personal lessons : when WaMu was in the dumper , I bought a few hundred shares of their stock , feeling quite certain that they would be purchased by one of the more solvent banks , and at the worst , my stocks would retain their value in a trade for the new parent company 's .
I was half-right .
Chase bought WaMu , paid off their executives handsomely ( one guy who 'd been there three weeks got $ 18M ) , and then somehow said , " We 're buying all the assets , but not the liabilities .
" The stock that was held by John Q. Public ( i.e .
me ) was associated with the organization which retained all the liabilities , and is now worth just a few pennies .
I would offload it , but the cost of the transaction ( $ 9.99 ) would eclipse the value of my WaMu stock .
So it 's all well and good to say that execs ' fortunes are tied to those of their companies , but as it turns out , even that is not entirely true .
There 's always a way to game the system , and unless you 're in the board room when it happens , there are very few protections out there .
The cost of the lesson to me ?
$ 600.00. Luckily , I could afford it .
On the flip side , my grandfather was heavily invested in Enron based on his retirement fund manager 's advice , and when they went down , he lost a thousand times that while their execs walked away richer than Croesus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good point, although there are mechanisms which allow for transactions like this to end up similar to handing over a jacket for general shareholders to divvy up while a company's executive team walks away with millions for what are nominally the same stocks.
One of my own personal lessons: when WaMu was in the dumper, I bought a few hundred shares of their stock, feeling quite certain that they would be purchased by one of the more solvent banks, and at the worst, my stocks would retain their value in a trade for the new parent company's.
I was half-right.
Chase bought WaMu, paid off their executives handsomely (one guy who'd been there three weeks got $18M), and then somehow said, "We're buying all the assets, but not the liabilities.
"  The stock that was held by John Q. Public (i.e.
me) was associated with the organization which retained all the liabilities, and is now worth just a few pennies.
I would offload it, but the cost of the transaction ($9.99) would eclipse the value of my WaMu stock.
So it's all well and good to say that execs' fortunes are tied to those of their companies, but  as it turns out, even that is not entirely true.
There's always a way to game the system, and unless you're in the board room when it happens, there are very few protections out there.
The cost of the lesson to me?
$600.00.  Luckily, I could afford it.
On the flip side, my grandfather was heavily invested in Enron based on his retirement fund manager's advice, and when they went down, he lost a thousand times that while their execs walked away richer than Croesus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064140</id>
	<title>First post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265620140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where's my million? - Larry Ellison</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 's my million ?
- Larry Ellison</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where's my million?
- Larry Ellison</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064736</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265622720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If those top managers are being paid in stock instead of in dollars, then clearly they are stockholders and hence their interests are one and the same as the stockholders.</p> </div><p>Um, Bullshit.  Top mangers are only aligned with stockholders when the stock goes up.  If the stock price collapses then the top execs get all of their lovely incentives repriced.  In other words, they win no matter what the stock does.</p><p>Please explain to me how that is being aligned with anything other than their own greed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If those top managers are being paid in stock instead of in dollars , then clearly they are stockholders and hence their interests are one and the same as the stockholders .
Um , Bullshit .
Top mangers are only aligned with stockholders when the stock goes up .
If the stock price collapses then the top execs get all of their lovely incentives repriced .
In other words , they win no matter what the stock does.Please explain to me how that is being aligned with anything other than their own greed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If those top managers are being paid in stock instead of in dollars, then clearly they are stockholders and hence their interests are one and the same as the stockholders.
Um, Bullshit.
Top mangers are only aligned with stockholders when the stock goes up.
If the stock price collapses then the top execs get all of their lovely incentives repriced.
In other words, they win no matter what the stock does.Please explain to me how that is being aligned with anything other than their own greed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066582</id>
	<title>McNeally can hold his head high...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265629980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For all of the reports of Sun losing billions, note that it finished with a positive bank account. Over its lifetime, Sun generated over $200 billion in revenue.</p><p>I think a $200 million payout to Mcnealy (.1\% of the company's gross revenues over almost 30 years) is not that unreasonable. McNeally was there from start to end, unlike ponytail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For all of the reports of Sun losing billions , note that it finished with a positive bank account .
Over its lifetime , Sun generated over $ 200 billion in revenue.I think a $ 200 million payout to Mcnealy ( .1 \ % of the company 's gross revenues over almost 30 years ) is not that unreasonable .
McNeally was there from start to end , unlike ponytail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For all of the reports of Sun losing billions, note that it finished with a positive bank account.
Over its lifetime, Sun generated over $200 billion in revenue.I think a $200 million payout to Mcnealy (.1\% of the company's gross revenues over almost 30 years) is not that unreasonable.
McNeally was there from start to end, unlike ponytail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064490</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265621580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This deserves at least +6</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This deserves at least + 6</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This deserves at least +6</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064154</id>
	<title>Link to DailyKos diatribe?</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1265620200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on dude, do you really think people here are retards?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on dude , do you really think people here are retards ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on dude, do you really think people here are retards?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31068558</id>
	<title>There was no failure!!!</title>
	<author>swordgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1265647980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jonathan made it clear well over a year before the Oracle offer was on the table that they were trying to find a buyer.</p><p>Sun had, at one recent point, enough CASH RESERVES to take the company private again, and stayed public, aggressively driving the stock price lower and lower.</p><p>This is a big success for the executives--they crushed Sun, forced an acquisition, and got richer. That was their goal, they succeeded, and should therefore get their money!</p><p>So it goes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jonathan made it clear well over a year before the Oracle offer was on the table that they were trying to find a buyer.Sun had , at one recent point , enough CASH RESERVES to take the company private again , and stayed public , aggressively driving the stock price lower and lower.This is a big success for the executives--they crushed Sun , forced an acquisition , and got richer .
That was their goal , they succeeded , and should therefore get their money ! So it goes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jonathan made it clear well over a year before the Oracle offer was on the table that they were trying to find a buyer.Sun had, at one recent point, enough CASH RESERVES to take the company private again, and stayed public, aggressively driving the stock price lower and lower.This is a big success for the executives--they crushed Sun, forced an acquisition, and got richer.
That was their goal, they succeeded, and should therefore get their money!So it goes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067028</id>
	<title>Seriously, why all the politics?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265632260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I understand this fellow is a German. But why does every discussion on American companies and culture come down to this tired Republican/Democrat argument. The rest of the world doesn't really care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand this fellow is a German .
But why does every discussion on American companies and culture come down to this tired Republican/Democrat argument .
The rest of the world does n't really care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand this fellow is a German.
But why does every discussion on American companies and culture come down to this tired Republican/Democrat argument.
The rest of the world doesn't really care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064966</id>
	<title>American companies are unique in this respect.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265623500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>With regards to highly compensated senior management, American companies are relatively unique.  Among Japan, Europe, and the USA, the ranking from highest relative compensation for the CEO to lowest relative compensation is the following.
<p>
1.  USA
</p><p>
2.  Europe
</p><p>
3.  Japan
</p><p>
Here, "relative" means dividing (1) the annual income of the chief executive officer by (2) the average annual income of the employees who are not part of the management structure.
</p><p>
Table 2 on page 6 of <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/ceo\_pay\_web\_final.pdf" title="americanprogress.org" rel="nofollow">an interesting document analyzing the financial compensation of American CEOs</a> [americanprogress.org] is instructive.  For the sake of this discussion, we can reasonably assume that figure in the aformentioned category #2 is approximately the same throughout the West.
</p><p>
Table 2 then, in effect, gives us the relative compensation of the CEOs in the West.  The typical American CEO in 2003 received annual compensation that is worth $2.2 million.  The typical European CEO received $700,000.  The typical Japanese CEO received $460,000.
</p><p>
Was the American CEO worth his pay?  American neoconservatives answer, "Yes."  They say that such compensation enables American companies to be top-notch competitors in high-technology.
</p><p>
On 2009 November 5, "The Economist" issued a startling <a href="http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story\_id=14793432" title="economist.com" rel="nofollow">report</a> [economist.com].  It asserts, with plenty of evidence, that Japanese companies are the sole manufacturers of numerous components that are critical to the operation of high-technology devices ranging from tiny disk drives to huge nuclear reactors.
</p><p>
So, who is telling the truth?  American neoconservatives or the "The Economist"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With regards to highly compensated senior management , American companies are relatively unique .
Among Japan , Europe , and the USA , the ranking from highest relative compensation for the CEO to lowest relative compensation is the following .
1. USA 2 .
Europe 3 .
Japan Here , " relative " means dividing ( 1 ) the annual income of the chief executive officer by ( 2 ) the average annual income of the employees who are not part of the management structure .
Table 2 on page 6 of an interesting document analyzing the financial compensation of American CEOs [ americanprogress.org ] is instructive .
For the sake of this discussion , we can reasonably assume that figure in the aformentioned category # 2 is approximately the same throughout the West .
Table 2 then , in effect , gives us the relative compensation of the CEOs in the West .
The typical American CEO in 2003 received annual compensation that is worth $ 2.2 million .
The typical European CEO received $ 700,000 .
The typical Japanese CEO received $ 460,000 .
Was the American CEO worth his pay ?
American neoconservatives answer , " Yes .
" They say that such compensation enables American companies to be top-notch competitors in high-technology .
On 2009 November 5 , " The Economist " issued a startling report [ economist.com ] .
It asserts , with plenty of evidence , that Japanese companies are the sole manufacturers of numerous components that are critical to the operation of high-technology devices ranging from tiny disk drives to huge nuclear reactors .
So , who is telling the truth ?
American neoconservatives or the " The Economist " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With regards to highly compensated senior management, American companies are relatively unique.
Among Japan, Europe, and the USA, the ranking from highest relative compensation for the CEO to lowest relative compensation is the following.
1.  USA

2.
Europe

3.
Japan

Here, "relative" means dividing (1) the annual income of the chief executive officer by (2) the average annual income of the employees who are not part of the management structure.
Table 2 on page 6 of an interesting document analyzing the financial compensation of American CEOs [americanprogress.org] is instructive.
For the sake of this discussion, we can reasonably assume that figure in the aformentioned category #2 is approximately the same throughout the West.
Table 2 then, in effect, gives us the relative compensation of the CEOs in the West.
The typical American CEO in 2003 received annual compensation that is worth $2.2 million.
The typical European CEO received $700,000.
The typical Japanese CEO received $460,000.
Was the American CEO worth his pay?
American neoconservatives answer, "Yes.
"  They say that such compensation enables American companies to be top-notch competitors in high-technology.
On 2009 November 5, "The Economist" issued a startling report [economist.com].
It asserts, with plenty of evidence, that Japanese companies are the sole manufacturers of numerous components that are critical to the operation of high-technology devices ranging from tiny disk drives to huge nuclear reactors.
So, who is telling the truth?
American neoconservatives or the "The Economist"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064294</id>
	<title>Well, sure they sucked...</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1265620800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>...But if we hadn't paid them a competitive salary we might have lost them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...But if we had n't paid them a competitive salary we might have lost them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...But if we hadn't paid them a competitive salary we might have lost them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065456</id>
	<title>Where's the legislation?</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1265625420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Barring a modest salary - say $200,000 AT MOST, no executive should be permitted to take more out of a company than they put in. Short term profits and asset sales need to be dismissed otherwise the CEO can just gut the company. The total value of the company when they come in vs. when they go out is what the equation should be based on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barring a modest salary - say $ 200,000 AT MOST , no executive should be permitted to take more out of a company than they put in .
Short term profits and asset sales need to be dismissed otherwise the CEO can just gut the company .
The total value of the company when they come in vs. when they go out is what the equation should be based on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barring a modest salary - say $200,000 AT MOST, no executive should be permitted to take more out of a company than they put in.
Short term profits and asset sales need to be dismissed otherwise the CEO can just gut the company.
The total value of the company when they come in vs. when they go out is what the equation should be based on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066128</id>
	<title>Lunch tomorrow...</title>
	<author>gillbates</author>
	<datestamp>1265627940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
And if he's a manager, he'll steal your lunch and blame it on the bad economy.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And if he 's a manager , he 'll steal your lunch and blame it on the bad economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
And if he's a manager, he'll steal your lunch and blame it on the bad economy.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066064</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>Zordak</author>
	<datestamp>1265627700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Tell me the last time a politician voted on something they saw as political suicide?</p> </div><p>Well, not really a "vote," but <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald\_Ford#Pardon\_of\_Nixon" title="wikipedia.org">Gerald Ford</a> [wikipedia.org].  Ford was likable and had a good shot at winning a full term on his own, but the pardon pretty much ended his political career.  Ironically, at the time, the perception was that letting Nixon "take his lumps" would have been taking the high road.  But Ford did what he thought was right, instead of what was politically expedient, even though what he thought was right looked a lot like political croneyism, and what was politically expedient looked like a lot like "statesmanship."  And now a lot of people (including, for example, the late Ted Kennedy) agree that history is on Ford's side:  the pardon avoided the dog and pony show of a Nixon trial and let the country move on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell me the last time a politician voted on something they saw as political suicide ?
Well , not really a " vote , " but Gerald Ford [ wikipedia.org ] .
Ford was likable and had a good shot at winning a full term on his own , but the pardon pretty much ended his political career .
Ironically , at the time , the perception was that letting Nixon " take his lumps " would have been taking the high road .
But Ford did what he thought was right , instead of what was politically expedient , even though what he thought was right looked a lot like political croneyism , and what was politically expedient looked like a lot like " statesmanship .
" And now a lot of people ( including , for example , the late Ted Kennedy ) agree that history is on Ford 's side : the pardon avoided the dog and pony show of a Nixon trial and let the country move on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell me the last time a politician voted on something they saw as political suicide?
Well, not really a "vote," but Gerald Ford [wikipedia.org].
Ford was likable and had a good shot at winning a full term on his own, but the pardon pretty much ended his political career.
Ironically, at the time, the perception was that letting Nixon "take his lumps" would have been taking the high road.
But Ford did what he thought was right, instead of what was politically expedient, even though what he thought was right looked a lot like political croneyism, and what was politically expedient looked like a lot like "statesmanship.
"  And now a lot of people (including, for example, the late Ted Kennedy) agree that history is on Ford's side:  the pardon avoided the dog and pony show of a Nixon trial and let the country move on.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064402</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>castironpigeon</author>
	<datestamp>1265621220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the average person can not be bothered to concern himself enough so that in the aggregate with other people that person can effect change.</p></div><p>This is because the average person probably isn't thinking much farther ahead than what he'll have for lunch tomorrow. By the time he realizes he won't have anything for lunch tomorrow he's no longer in a position to do anything about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the average person can not be bothered to concern himself enough so that in the aggregate with other people that person can effect change.This is because the average person probably is n't thinking much farther ahead than what he 'll have for lunch tomorrow .
By the time he realizes he wo n't have anything for lunch tomorrow he 's no longer in a position to do anything about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the average person can not be bothered to concern himself enough so that in the aggregate with other people that person can effect change.This is because the average person probably isn't thinking much farther ahead than what he'll have for lunch tomorrow.
By the time he realizes he won't have anything for lunch tomorrow he's no longer in a position to do anything about it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067106</id>
	<title>more republican bs</title>
	<author>turkeyfish</author>
	<datestamp>1265632800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"to the extant that the government will not use its power to make the opportunities explicitly unequal."</p><p>Yeah.  Right.  Sounds like you need a history lesson my friend.  Weren't the folks that wrote the constitution the same folks that denied the right to vote to anyone not owning property, anyone who was not female, and let us remind everyone of US history, that made slavery perfectly legal?  If you are willing to defend that, fine but don't go around telling everyone that people shouldn't demand that one purpose of government is precisely to "coerce people" into giving up totally unjust and unworkable ideas such as slavery, forcing children to work for less then minimum wage, murder, etc.  The same is true for taxes.  You may not like them, but then again, its a hell of a lot better than the anarchy republicans are selling these days that will no doubt ensure if no one pays any taxes.  Have you ever wondered how we would pay soldiers to risk their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq without taxes?  Don't we have enough chaos and anarchy in our system now?  Why do you advocate for more?</p><p>Laws are written to control people so we don't have anarchy and perhaps some modest sense of justice.  Most of the time they are written so that what constitutes anarchy and justice is largely defined by those with enough money to buy the politicians and lawmakers to see to it that such definitions are more favorable to themselves.  Why you want to grant even more power to corporate elites is beyond me.</p><p>Socialism is not the "opposite of freedom".  That is just republican bunk for the uneducated and foolish, who will gladly beat themselves about the head if told it feels good.  Socialism is a system in which everyone pays in to get benefits from the system as a whole, in which everyone agrees not to rely on third party middle men to can muscle in for an ever greater profit.</p><p>You only have to ask all those "oppressed" people in Sweden, Denmark, or Germany how they are faring under socialism, where they have free government sponsored health care, liveable pensions, laws that protect their environment, enough money to fight crime and regulate their markets and trade, pave their streets, support their corporations to compete internationally, make sure their trains run on time, even have trains that work, grant them well-paid government sponsored holiday time, and educate their children so they far exceed US school children in math and science scores, etc. to see if they would trade all it in for your version of "freedom" from government.  Do they have problems, yes of course, but they pale in comparison to the failings voters in the US have brought for themselves by buying into republican corporate talking points.</p><p>What you are advocating is simply turning the opportunities for coercion over to unregulated, unelected corporate executives, who will not by law be constrained to deny you health care, force your children to work for less than minimum wage, refuse to pay your insurance claim, give your social security pension to Wall Street investors, walk away from your pension plan, let big banks destroy the financial system by fraudulently selling worthless paper, let guys like Bernie Madoff go free no matter how bit the scam, let your cable company charge you hundreds of dollars a month to watch their commercials, etc.  No doubt, all a republican's wet dream.</p><p>Sorry to be impolite, but you are so caught up in your own rhetoric that you don't even recognize that what you are advocating is anarchy or at best corporate feudalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" to the extant that the government will not use its power to make the opportunities explicitly unequal. " Yeah .
Right. Sounds like you need a history lesson my friend .
Were n't the folks that wrote the constitution the same folks that denied the right to vote to anyone not owning property , anyone who was not female , and let us remind everyone of US history , that made slavery perfectly legal ?
If you are willing to defend that , fine but do n't go around telling everyone that people should n't demand that one purpose of government is precisely to " coerce people " into giving up totally unjust and unworkable ideas such as slavery , forcing children to work for less then minimum wage , murder , etc .
The same is true for taxes .
You may not like them , but then again , its a hell of a lot better than the anarchy republicans are selling these days that will no doubt ensure if no one pays any taxes .
Have you ever wondered how we would pay soldiers to risk their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq without taxes ?
Do n't we have enough chaos and anarchy in our system now ?
Why do you advocate for more ? Laws are written to control people so we do n't have anarchy and perhaps some modest sense of justice .
Most of the time they are written so that what constitutes anarchy and justice is largely defined by those with enough money to buy the politicians and lawmakers to see to it that such definitions are more favorable to themselves .
Why you want to grant even more power to corporate elites is beyond me.Socialism is not the " opposite of freedom " .
That is just republican bunk for the uneducated and foolish , who will gladly beat themselves about the head if told it feels good .
Socialism is a system in which everyone pays in to get benefits from the system as a whole , in which everyone agrees not to rely on third party middle men to can muscle in for an ever greater profit.You only have to ask all those " oppressed " people in Sweden , Denmark , or Germany how they are faring under socialism , where they have free government sponsored health care , liveable pensions , laws that protect their environment , enough money to fight crime and regulate their markets and trade , pave their streets , support their corporations to compete internationally , make sure their trains run on time , even have trains that work , grant them well-paid government sponsored holiday time , and educate their children so they far exceed US school children in math and science scores , etc .
to see if they would trade all it in for your version of " freedom " from government .
Do they have problems , yes of course , but they pale in comparison to the failings voters in the US have brought for themselves by buying into republican corporate talking points.What you are advocating is simply turning the opportunities for coercion over to unregulated , unelected corporate executives , who will not by law be constrained to deny you health care , force your children to work for less than minimum wage , refuse to pay your insurance claim , give your social security pension to Wall Street investors , walk away from your pension plan , let big banks destroy the financial system by fraudulently selling worthless paper , let guys like Bernie Madoff go free no matter how bit the scam , let your cable company charge you hundreds of dollars a month to watch their commercials , etc .
No doubt , all a republican 's wet dream.Sorry to be impolite , but you are so caught up in your own rhetoric that you do n't even recognize that what you are advocating is anarchy or at best corporate feudalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"to the extant that the government will not use its power to make the opportunities explicitly unequal."Yeah.
Right.  Sounds like you need a history lesson my friend.
Weren't the folks that wrote the constitution the same folks that denied the right to vote to anyone not owning property, anyone who was not female, and let us remind everyone of US history, that made slavery perfectly legal?
If you are willing to defend that, fine but don't go around telling everyone that people shouldn't demand that one purpose of government is precisely to "coerce people" into giving up totally unjust and unworkable ideas such as slavery, forcing children to work for less then minimum wage, murder, etc.
The same is true for taxes.
You may not like them, but then again, its a hell of a lot better than the anarchy republicans are selling these days that will no doubt ensure if no one pays any taxes.
Have you ever wondered how we would pay soldiers to risk their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq without taxes?
Don't we have enough chaos and anarchy in our system now?
Why do you advocate for more?Laws are written to control people so we don't have anarchy and perhaps some modest sense of justice.
Most of the time they are written so that what constitutes anarchy and justice is largely defined by those with enough money to buy the politicians and lawmakers to see to it that such definitions are more favorable to themselves.
Why you want to grant even more power to corporate elites is beyond me.Socialism is not the "opposite of freedom".
That is just republican bunk for the uneducated and foolish, who will gladly beat themselves about the head if told it feels good.
Socialism is a system in which everyone pays in to get benefits from the system as a whole, in which everyone agrees not to rely on third party middle men to can muscle in for an ever greater profit.You only have to ask all those "oppressed" people in Sweden, Denmark, or Germany how they are faring under socialism, where they have free government sponsored health care, liveable pensions, laws that protect their environment, enough money to fight crime and regulate their markets and trade, pave their streets, support their corporations to compete internationally, make sure their trains run on time, even have trains that work, grant them well-paid government sponsored holiday time, and educate their children so they far exceed US school children in math and science scores, etc.
to see if they would trade all it in for your version of "freedom" from government.
Do they have problems, yes of course, but they pale in comparison to the failings voters in the US have brought for themselves by buying into republican corporate talking points.What you are advocating is simply turning the opportunities for coercion over to unregulated, unelected corporate executives, who will not by law be constrained to deny you health care, force your children to work for less than minimum wage, refuse to pay your insurance claim, give your social security pension to Wall Street investors, walk away from your pension plan, let big banks destroy the financial system by fraudulently selling worthless paper, let guys like Bernie Madoff go free no matter how bit the scam, let your cable company charge you hundreds of dollars a month to watch their commercials, etc.
No doubt, all a republican's wet dream.Sorry to be impolite, but you are so caught up in your own rhetoric that you don't even recognize that what you are advocating is anarchy or at best corporate feudalism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064260</id>
	<title>Paid to Fail</title>
	<author>the1337g33k</author>
	<datestamp>1265620620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sometimes its nice to know that while most of us actually work our jobs and do them very well, some companies like sun employ people where their only job is to screw the company and its employees for money they don't deserve.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes its nice to know that while most of us actually work our jobs and do them very well , some companies like sun employ people where their only job is to screw the company and its employees for money they do n't deserve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes its nice to know that while most of us actually work our jobs and do them very well, some companies like sun employ people where their only job is to screw the company and its employees for money they don't deserve.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31069198</id>
	<title>I put on my flame suit and wizard hat...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265655660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Full disclosure: I'm a CPA working for a public accounting firm assigned to a Fortune 500 client.</p><p>If this wasn't the middle of February, I'd probably write some long diatribe.  But I'm in the middle of busy season, and 16-hour days are the norm.  So, in light of my desire to sleep, here's the other side of the coin.  The folks you read about on the news are the exception to the rule - typically making poor judgement decisions with inadequate board support.  Most C-level folks that I've met over the course of my career are extraordinarily bright and have a full understanding that their job entails great responsibility.  When you have thousands of people who are reliant on your ability to bring home the bacon day in and day out, you tend to gain a new perspective on things.</p><p>I'm not going to try and sway your opinion here on whether or not the compensation is excessive - that's entirely a judgement call on behalf of the folks crying out that it's "evil".  I will say that more thought than you can imagine goes into most executive plans, and it is done with a bevy of statistical support, generally leaning heavily toward company-performance-based compensation (as in, if you don't perform, you're not getting paid.) I can say from my time in public accounting, that I can see where the compensation comes from - there is a hell of a price tag to get to the position where most CEOs are.  Personally, no matter of compensation is worth the 100-hour weeks and unlimited liability (read:SOX) that goes along with the job.</p><p>I doubt that many of you will agree with my stance on the topic, and I'd be willing to bet that I'll be called out on it.  But after having seen just exactly what the job entails, I can honestly say that, to me, the only way I'd be willing to do that job is if I was paid accordingly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Full disclosure : I 'm a CPA working for a public accounting firm assigned to a Fortune 500 client.If this was n't the middle of February , I 'd probably write some long diatribe .
But I 'm in the middle of busy season , and 16-hour days are the norm .
So , in light of my desire to sleep , here 's the other side of the coin .
The folks you read about on the news are the exception to the rule - typically making poor judgement decisions with inadequate board support .
Most C-level folks that I 've met over the course of my career are extraordinarily bright and have a full understanding that their job entails great responsibility .
When you have thousands of people who are reliant on your ability to bring home the bacon day in and day out , you tend to gain a new perspective on things.I 'm not going to try and sway your opinion here on whether or not the compensation is excessive - that 's entirely a judgement call on behalf of the folks crying out that it 's " evil " .
I will say that more thought than you can imagine goes into most executive plans , and it is done with a bevy of statistical support , generally leaning heavily toward company-performance-based compensation ( as in , if you do n't perform , you 're not getting paid .
) I can say from my time in public accounting , that I can see where the compensation comes from - there is a hell of a price tag to get to the position where most CEOs are .
Personally , no matter of compensation is worth the 100-hour weeks and unlimited liability ( read : SOX ) that goes along with the job.I doubt that many of you will agree with my stance on the topic , and I 'd be willing to bet that I 'll be called out on it .
But after having seen just exactly what the job entails , I can honestly say that , to me , the only way I 'd be willing to do that job is if I was paid accordingly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Full disclosure: I'm a CPA working for a public accounting firm assigned to a Fortune 500 client.If this wasn't the middle of February, I'd probably write some long diatribe.
But I'm in the middle of busy season, and 16-hour days are the norm.
So, in light of my desire to sleep, here's the other side of the coin.
The folks you read about on the news are the exception to the rule - typically making poor judgement decisions with inadequate board support.
Most C-level folks that I've met over the course of my career are extraordinarily bright and have a full understanding that their job entails great responsibility.
When you have thousands of people who are reliant on your ability to bring home the bacon day in and day out, you tend to gain a new perspective on things.I'm not going to try and sway your opinion here on whether or not the compensation is excessive - that's entirely a judgement call on behalf of the folks crying out that it's "evil".
I will say that more thought than you can imagine goes into most executive plans, and it is done with a bevy of statistical support, generally leaning heavily toward company-performance-based compensation (as in, if you don't perform, you're not getting paid.
) I can say from my time in public accounting, that I can see where the compensation comes from - there is a hell of a price tag to get to the position where most CEOs are.
Personally, no matter of compensation is worth the 100-hour weeks and unlimited liability (read:SOX) that goes along with the job.I doubt that many of you will agree with my stance on the topic, and I'd be willing to bet that I'll be called out on it.
But after having seen just exactly what the job entails, I can honestly say that, to me, the only way I'd be willing to do that job is if I was paid accordingly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065478</id>
	<title>Re:To quote Mel: "Its good to be the King"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265625480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah. Scott McNealy was one of the founders of the company and worked there for over 20 years. He helped turn it into a multi-billion dollar company. The fact that he owned $100 million or so worth of stock at the time Oracle bought Sun is no surprise. And it's not what is considered a "golden parachute".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
Scott McNealy was one of the founders of the company and worked there for over 20 years .
He helped turn it into a multi-billion dollar company .
The fact that he owned $ 100 million or so worth of stock at the time Oracle bought Sun is no surprise .
And it 's not what is considered a " golden parachute " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
Scott McNealy was one of the founders of the company and worked there for over 20 years.
He helped turn it into a multi-billion dollar company.
The fact that he owned $100 million or so worth of stock at the time Oracle bought Sun is no surprise.
And it's not what is considered a "golden parachute".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224</id>
	<title>How Companies Work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265620500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
How Companies Work
</p><p>
There are a few top managers, and they run the company for their own interests.
If they have stockholders, they have to make some pretense that they are
working for the stockholders, but look how much stock \_they\_ are getting out
of the company. Sometimes they collect a $1/year salary to look good, while
they get many Millions of dollars in stock per year.
Rarely do people at this level work for anyone but themselves.
</p><p>
Then there are a number of second-tier managers, whose goal is to make the most
out of the company that they can, or to make it to that top level so that they
can run the company for their own interest. Sometimes people at this level
have other motivations.
</p><p>
Then there are lots of other people. Often these people haven't even thought
very deeply about what their motivations are. They are essentially treated as
work-units which keep the company operating, but they are as expendible as a
server in a rack. Fortunately, companies do need their talents, at least for
now.
</p><p>
Then there are the small stockholders. They cross their fingers and hope the
managers will do a good job for them, but they really do not have any power
to influence the company.
</p><p>
Then there is the government. The government's job is to protect little guys
with no power (the general population)
from big guys with lots of power. But unfortunately the big guys essentially own the government,
because of the fact that they pay for political campaigns and in other ways
influence politicians, and because they are gate-keepers on jobs for voters.
</p><p>
All of this motivated self-interest is supposed to result in a good working
system for the general population. It doesn't work terribly well. However,
there are many other systems that work even worse, so people are reluctant
to change it. Also, the average person can not be bothered to concern himself
enough so that in the aggregate with other people that person can effect change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How Companies Work There are a few top managers , and they run the company for their own interests .
If they have stockholders , they have to make some pretense that they are working for the stockholders , but look how much stock \ _they \ _ are getting out of the company .
Sometimes they collect a $ 1/year salary to look good , while they get many Millions of dollars in stock per year .
Rarely do people at this level work for anyone but themselves .
Then there are a number of second-tier managers , whose goal is to make the most out of the company that they can , or to make it to that top level so that they can run the company for their own interest .
Sometimes people at this level have other motivations .
Then there are lots of other people .
Often these people have n't even thought very deeply about what their motivations are .
They are essentially treated as work-units which keep the company operating , but they are as expendible as a server in a rack .
Fortunately , companies do need their talents , at least for now .
Then there are the small stockholders .
They cross their fingers and hope the managers will do a good job for them , but they really do not have any power to influence the company .
Then there is the government .
The government 's job is to protect little guys with no power ( the general population ) from big guys with lots of power .
But unfortunately the big guys essentially own the government , because of the fact that they pay for political campaigns and in other ways influence politicians , and because they are gate-keepers on jobs for voters .
All of this motivated self-interest is supposed to result in a good working system for the general population .
It does n't work terribly well .
However , there are many other systems that work even worse , so people are reluctant to change it .
Also , the average person can not be bothered to concern himself enough so that in the aggregate with other people that person can effect change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
How Companies Work

There are a few top managers, and they run the company for their own interests.
If they have stockholders, they have to make some pretense that they are
working for the stockholders, but look how much stock \_they\_ are getting out
of the company.
Sometimes they collect a $1/year salary to look good, while
they get many Millions of dollars in stock per year.
Rarely do people at this level work for anyone but themselves.
Then there are a number of second-tier managers, whose goal is to make the most
out of the company that they can, or to make it to that top level so that they
can run the company for their own interest.
Sometimes people at this level
have other motivations.
Then there are lots of other people.
Often these people haven't even thought
very deeply about what their motivations are.
They are essentially treated as
work-units which keep the company operating, but they are as expendible as a
server in a rack.
Fortunately, companies do need their talents, at least for
now.
Then there are the small stockholders.
They cross their fingers and hope the
managers will do a good job for them, but they really do not have any power
to influence the company.
Then there is the government.
The government's job is to protect little guys
with no power (the general population)
from big guys with lots of power.
But unfortunately the big guys essentially own the government,
because of the fact that they pay for political campaigns and in other ways
influence politicians, and because they are gate-keepers on jobs for voters.
All of this motivated self-interest is supposed to result in a good working
system for the general population.
It doesn't work terribly well.
However,
there are many other systems that work even worse, so people are reluctant
to change it.
Also, the average person can not be bothered to concern himself
enough so that in the aggregate with other people that person can effect change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066408</id>
	<title>Nonsense</title>
	<author>turkeyfish</author>
	<datestamp>1265629200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The majority of stockholders do not have enough shares to permit themselves to sit on the corporate board and award themselves additional stock options at the expense of the other shareholders.  They make up the bulk of the ownership ONLY because they have been allowed to game the system, not because it somehow benefits other shareholders.  Don't believe it?  Then just look at corporate income and see where most of it goes.  Not to shareholders in terms of increasing return on investment but to insiders who skim an ever greater share of the loot before the average shareholder has the time to press the sell button on his PC.</p><p>Wall Street greed and executive compensations have reached the point of such ridiculousness that only the insane and those investing OTHER PEOPLE's pensions would be foolish enough to invest in most US corporations these days.  The longer you hold such stock the greater time you give to insiders to steal your investment.  Lets face it the system is totally broken.  Yet so many just shrug their shoulder and think well that is the way its supposed to work, not thinking about the consequences to society as a whole.</p><p>Capitalism is in for a far rougher patch than most might have predicted.  However, we may just pull ourselves out of it.  All we need is just one more good Ponzi Scheme.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The majority of stockholders do not have enough shares to permit themselves to sit on the corporate board and award themselves additional stock options at the expense of the other shareholders .
They make up the bulk of the ownership ONLY because they have been allowed to game the system , not because it somehow benefits other shareholders .
Do n't believe it ?
Then just look at corporate income and see where most of it goes .
Not to shareholders in terms of increasing return on investment but to insiders who skim an ever greater share of the loot before the average shareholder has the time to press the sell button on his PC.Wall Street greed and executive compensations have reached the point of such ridiculousness that only the insane and those investing OTHER PEOPLE 's pensions would be foolish enough to invest in most US corporations these days .
The longer you hold such stock the greater time you give to insiders to steal your investment .
Lets face it the system is totally broken .
Yet so many just shrug their shoulder and think well that is the way its supposed to work , not thinking about the consequences to society as a whole.Capitalism is in for a far rougher patch than most might have predicted .
However , we may just pull ourselves out of it .
All we need is just one more good Ponzi Scheme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The majority of stockholders do not have enough shares to permit themselves to sit on the corporate board and award themselves additional stock options at the expense of the other shareholders.
They make up the bulk of the ownership ONLY because they have been allowed to game the system, not because it somehow benefits other shareholders.
Don't believe it?
Then just look at corporate income and see where most of it goes.
Not to shareholders in terms of increasing return on investment but to insiders who skim an ever greater share of the loot before the average shareholder has the time to press the sell button on his PC.Wall Street greed and executive compensations have reached the point of such ridiculousness that only the insane and those investing OTHER PEOPLE's pensions would be foolish enough to invest in most US corporations these days.
The longer you hold such stock the greater time you give to insiders to steal your investment.
Lets face it the system is totally broken.
Yet so many just shrug their shoulder and think well that is the way its supposed to work, not thinking about the consequences to society as a whole.Capitalism is in for a far rougher patch than most might have predicted.
However, we may just pull ourselves out of it.
All we need is just one more good Ponzi Scheme.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31068822</id>
	<title>Exactly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265650860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, blame the "suffering of the employees" on the people that gave them all a f*ckin job.</p><p>Stupid drones...</p><p>I'm glad Ellison's rolling in cash.</p><p>His former worker bees probably had a case of the mondays</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , blame the " suffering of the employees " on the people that gave them all a f * ckin job.Stupid drones...I 'm glad Ellison 's rolling in cash.His former worker bees probably had a case of the mondays</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, blame the "suffering of the employees" on the people that gave them all a f*ckin job.Stupid drones...I'm glad Ellison's rolling in cash.His former worker bees probably had a case of the mondays</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064466</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>godrik</author>
	<datestamp>1265621520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am pleased to see I am not the only one to think that our (I should emphasize I am european) system suck so much; but so much less than the other one we know of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am pleased to see I am not the only one to think that our ( I should emphasize I am european ) system suck so much ; but so much less than the other one we know of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am pleased to see I am not the only one to think that our (I should emphasize I am european) system suck so much; but so much less than the other one we know of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31068416</id>
	<title>Paid to Leave, Not to Fail</title>
	<author>Doc Ruby</author>
	<datestamp>1265646180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These execs aren't being paid because they failed. Their failures are now irrelevant, because they're leaving and the company is being changed by the new owner.</p><p>They're being paid to leave. They have contracts and other leverage that could do damage to the new company if they didn't leave quietly. It's cheaper to pay them to leave than to let them stay, to fight them, or to let them do whatever they can do with their access or knowledge of the inner workings and the people who do stay.</p><p>This is also the reason the bankers who crashed the economy are getting paid, though their failures were epic.</p><p>You don't get paid for your work. You get paid for what it costs to get rid of you or to keep you, depending on what you do in return for getting paid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These execs are n't being paid because they failed .
Their failures are now irrelevant , because they 're leaving and the company is being changed by the new owner.They 're being paid to leave .
They have contracts and other leverage that could do damage to the new company if they did n't leave quietly .
It 's cheaper to pay them to leave than to let them stay , to fight them , or to let them do whatever they can do with their access or knowledge of the inner workings and the people who do stay.This is also the reason the bankers who crashed the economy are getting paid , though their failures were epic.You do n't get paid for your work .
You get paid for what it costs to get rid of you or to keep you , depending on what you do in return for getting paid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These execs aren't being paid because they failed.
Their failures are now irrelevant, because they're leaving and the company is being changed by the new owner.They're being paid to leave.
They have contracts and other leverage that could do damage to the new company if they didn't leave quietly.
It's cheaper to pay them to leave than to let them stay, to fight them, or to let them do whatever they can do with their access or knowledge of the inner workings and the people who do stay.This is also the reason the bankers who crashed the economy are getting paid, though their failures were epic.You don't get paid for your work.
You get paid for what it costs to get rid of you or to keep you, depending on what you do in return for getting paid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31068074</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1265642160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is because the average person probably isn't thinking much farther ahead than what he'll have for lunch tomorrow. By the time he realizes he won't have anything for lunch tomorrow he's no longer in a position to do anything about it.</p></div><p>And the ones who do think a little further ahead than tomorrow's lunch are called 'fundamentalist', 'extremist', 'bigot', 'political' and other nasty names, while the short-term thinkers are praised as 'pragmatic', 'flexible', 'productive', 'just get-it-done sort of guys'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is because the average person probably is n't thinking much farther ahead than what he 'll have for lunch tomorrow .
By the time he realizes he wo n't have anything for lunch tomorrow he 's no longer in a position to do anything about it.And the ones who do think a little further ahead than tomorrow 's lunch are called 'fundamentalist ' , 'extremist ' , 'bigot ' , 'political ' and other nasty names , while the short-term thinkers are praised as 'pragmatic ' , 'flexible ' , 'productive ' , 'just get-it-done sort of guys' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is because the average person probably isn't thinking much farther ahead than what he'll have for lunch tomorrow.
By the time he realizes he won't have anything for lunch tomorrow he's no longer in a position to do anything about it.And the ones who do think a little further ahead than tomorrow's lunch are called 'fundamentalist', 'extremist', 'bigot', 'political' and other nasty names, while the short-term thinkers are praised as 'pragmatic', 'flexible', 'productive', 'just get-it-done sort of guys'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064278</id>
	<title>What a great success story...</title>
	<author>creimer</author>
	<datestamp>1265620680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>1. Develop great products.<br>
2. Run company into ground.<br>
3. ???<br>
4. Profit w/golden parachute.<br> </i>
<br>
This seems to be a very successful formula for many executives over the last decade.  Not that society benefits from all this "creative destruction" to enrich a few people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Develop great products .
2. Run company into ground .
3. ? ? ?
4. Profit w/golden parachute .
This seems to be a very successful formula for many executives over the last decade .
Not that society benefits from all this " creative destruction " to enrich a few people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Develop great products.
2. Run company into ground.
3. ???
4. Profit w/golden parachute.
This seems to be a very successful formula for many executives over the last decade.
Not that society benefits from all this "creative destruction" to enrich a few people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066344</id>
	<title>Welcome to the status quo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265628900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>Ellison drops the ball and things start going south for Oracle, it's the employees who will suffer for it, and he'll be doing just fine."</i>"
<br>
<br>
Anything new here? Nope.
<br>
<br>
Sounds like the status quo in corporate America and 98\% of the world (business in general).
<br>
<br>
And I'm sure fans of 'Coco' know he was the winner (cough: 'CEO') compared to his employees (most a 45K severance, which is avg. for that industry).</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ellison drops the ball and things start going south for Oracle , it 's the employees who will suffer for it , and he 'll be doing just fine .
" " Anything new here ?
Nope . Sounds like the status quo in corporate America and 98 \ % of the world ( business in general ) .
And I 'm sure fans of 'Coco ' know he was the winner ( cough : 'CEO ' ) compared to his employees ( most a 45K severance , which is avg .
for that industry ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ellison drops the ball and things start going south for Oracle, it's the employees who will suffer for it, and he'll be doing just fine.
""


Anything new here?
Nope.


Sounds like the status quo in corporate America and 98\% of the world (business in general).
And I'm sure fans of 'Coco' know he was the winner (cough: 'CEO') compared to his employees (most a 45K severance, which is avg.
for that industry).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066222</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>wintercolby</author>
	<datestamp>1265628420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would have to argue that this is how organizations, in general, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron\_law\_of\_oligarchy" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">work</a> [wikipedia.org].  The problem with any of our nice counter-elitist illusions that unfortunately much of the masses seem to prefer ignorance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would have to argue that this is how organizations , in general , work [ wikipedia.org ] .
The problem with any of our nice counter-elitist illusions that unfortunately much of the masses seem to prefer ignorance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would have to argue that this is how organizations, in general, work [wikipedia.org].
The problem with any of our nice counter-elitist illusions that unfortunately much of the masses seem to prefer ignorance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065280</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1265624700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are other tools in manager's toolkits to ensure managerial profit even at the expense of stockholders. Among other techniques, one approach is to backdate or retroactively change stock options, so that even if the stock goes down the options entitle the compensated executives to a big bump to their personal net worth.</p><p>For instance, if the original contract gave an executive a call option at $10 at the end of the year, and the stock drops from $14 to $8, the executive can convince the board to revise his contract to give him a call option at $6 instead, and he still profits handsomely (an immediate 25\% return) when he exercises his options.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are other tools in manager 's toolkits to ensure managerial profit even at the expense of stockholders .
Among other techniques , one approach is to backdate or retroactively change stock options , so that even if the stock goes down the options entitle the compensated executives to a big bump to their personal net worth.For instance , if the original contract gave an executive a call option at $ 10 at the end of the year , and the stock drops from $ 14 to $ 8 , the executive can convince the board to revise his contract to give him a call option at $ 6 instead , and he still profits handsomely ( an immediate 25 \ % return ) when he exercises his options .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are other tools in manager's toolkits to ensure managerial profit even at the expense of stockholders.
Among other techniques, one approach is to backdate or retroactively change stock options, so that even if the stock goes down the options entitle the compensated executives to a big bump to their personal net worth.For instance, if the original contract gave an executive a call option at $10 at the end of the year, and the stock drops from $14 to $8, the executive can convince the board to revise his contract to give him a call option at $6 instead, and he still profits handsomely (an immediate 25\% return) when he exercises his options.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064254</id>
	<title>Missing the point.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265620620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's compare the total money he has been paid in 20+ years to the total salary that Sun has paid out to all it's employees and shareholder dividends before you decide the compensation is lop sided. Say what you want, this article is sour grapes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's compare the total money he has been paid in 20 + years to the total salary that Sun has paid out to all it 's employees and shareholder dividends before you decide the compensation is lop sided .
Say what you want , this article is sour grapes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's compare the total money he has been paid in 20+ years to the total salary that Sun has paid out to all it's employees and shareholder dividends before you decide the compensation is lop sided.
Say what you want, this article is sour grapes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064558</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>twsobey</author>
	<datestamp>1265621940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But we are all the "average person" so how do we start to effect that change?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But we are all the " average person " so how do we start to effect that change ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But we are all the "average person" so how do we start to effect that change?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065762</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1265626440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>    If those top managers are being paid in stock instead of in dollars, then
    clearly they are stockholders and hence their interests are one and the
    same as the stockholders. Which is the entire idea behind such compensation
    schemes.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
This ignores the one-sidedness of these kinds of compensation schemes.
In a public corporation, the liability of a stockholder is very much limited.
This implies that rewards (ie stock goes up in good times) are real, but
penalties (ie bad times or mismanagement stock goes down) are not real.
At worst, there is a paper loss, and that's ignoring the taxation games
that can be played.
</p><p>
Giving the top managers stock ownership is a terrible idea if the goal
is to link company performance to manager performance. It's like trying
to train a dog with only praise, but never addressing bad behaviour directly.
</p><p>
If the goal was linking managers' behaviour with company performance, then
there should be real penalties and liabilities for failure as well as
rewards for success, eg if the company goes into the red, then the manager should have real debts himself that are proportional.
This occurs in partnerships and companies which aren't
corporations, and ensures that such companies think more carefully about the
consequences of risky moves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If those top managers are being paid in stock instead of in dollars , then clearly they are stockholders and hence their interests are one and the same as the stockholders .
Which is the entire idea behind such compensation schemes .
This ignores the one-sidedness of these kinds of compensation schemes .
In a public corporation , the liability of a stockholder is very much limited .
This implies that rewards ( ie stock goes up in good times ) are real , but penalties ( ie bad times or mismanagement stock goes down ) are not real .
At worst , there is a paper loss , and that 's ignoring the taxation games that can be played .
Giving the top managers stock ownership is a terrible idea if the goal is to link company performance to manager performance .
It 's like trying to train a dog with only praise , but never addressing bad behaviour directly .
If the goal was linking managers ' behaviour with company performance , then there should be real penalties and liabilities for failure as well as rewards for success , eg if the company goes into the red , then the manager should have real debts himself that are proportional .
This occurs in partnerships and companies which are n't corporations , and ensures that such companies think more carefully about the consequences of risky moves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>    If those top managers are being paid in stock instead of in dollars, then
    clearly they are stockholders and hence their interests are one and the
    same as the stockholders.
Which is the entire idea behind such compensation
    schemes.
This ignores the one-sidedness of these kinds of compensation schemes.
In a public corporation, the liability of a stockholder is very much limited.
This implies that rewards (ie stock goes up in good times) are real, but
penalties (ie bad times or mismanagement stock goes down) are not real.
At worst, there is a paper loss, and that's ignoring the taxation games
that can be played.
Giving the top managers stock ownership is a terrible idea if the goal
is to link company performance to manager performance.
It's like trying
to train a dog with only praise, but never addressing bad behaviour directly.
If the goal was linking managers' behaviour with company performance, then
there should be real penalties and liabilities for failure as well as
rewards for success, eg if the company goes into the red, then the manager should have real debts himself that are proportional.
This occurs in partnerships and companies which aren't
corporations, and ensures that such companies think more carefully about the
consequences of risky moves.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31068168</id>
	<title>Re:American companies are unique in this respect.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265643420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"They say that such compensation enables American companies to be top-notch competitors in high-technology. "</p><p>If "competitive" means sucking at the government teat, and putting customers and shareholders in debt, and financial ruin, then, yes, our banks are doing well.</p><p>Compensation is to high, and it's not tied to the health of the company.  The very term "bonus" means a reward for excellent service.  Any executive who walks away from a failed company with a "bonus" in his pocket is a dishonest, scum sucking lowlife.  But, he's not the real problem - the real problem is the nepotism that he has profited from.</p><p>Government regulation of business has failed, plain and simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" They say that such compensation enables American companies to be top-notch competitors in high-technology .
" If " competitive " means sucking at the government teat , and putting customers and shareholders in debt , and financial ruin , then , yes , our banks are doing well.Compensation is to high , and it 's not tied to the health of the company .
The very term " bonus " means a reward for excellent service .
Any executive who walks away from a failed company with a " bonus " in his pocket is a dishonest , scum sucking lowlife .
But , he 's not the real problem - the real problem is the nepotism that he has profited from.Government regulation of business has failed , plain and simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They say that such compensation enables American companies to be top-notch competitors in high-technology.
"If "competitive" means sucking at the government teat, and putting customers and shareholders in debt, and financial ruin, then, yes, our banks are doing well.Compensation is to high, and it's not tied to the health of the company.
The very term "bonus" means a reward for excellent service.
Any executive who walks away from a failed company with a "bonus" in his pocket is a dishonest, scum sucking lowlife.
But, he's not the real problem - the real problem is the nepotism that he has profited from.Government regulation of business has failed, plain and simple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065598</id>
	<title>MBA's</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265625780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Harvard/Yale/ MBA 101 teaches businesses are nothing more than objects to sell to some other schmuck with too much money and not enough brains.  MBA 201 teaches benefit packages are there to make sure you're well compensated for selling the shareholders out.  MBA 301 strips you of any morals toward your fellow man/woman and turns you into a card carrying Republican.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Harvard/Yale/ MBA 101 teaches businesses are nothing more than objects to sell to some other schmuck with too much money and not enough brains .
MBA 201 teaches benefit packages are there to make sure you 're well compensated for selling the shareholders out .
MBA 301 strips you of any morals toward your fellow man/woman and turns you into a card carrying Republican .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Harvard/Yale/ MBA 101 teaches businesses are nothing more than objects to sell to some other schmuck with too much money and not enough brains.
MBA 201 teaches benefit packages are there to make sure you're well compensated for selling the shareholders out.
MBA 301 strips you of any morals toward your fellow man/woman and turns you into a card carrying Republican.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066024</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>hackingbear</author>
	<datestamp>1265627520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Selfishness is the most important natural characteristics of all lives -- from virus and bacteria to human beings -- that's why they compete and evolve. Even though they may act cooperatively sometimes but ultimately they are striking for their own interest. You can blame God or natural selection, depending whichever you believe.
</p><p>There is no known system that can effective suppress selfishness. Communism tried that but resulting in power concentrated in a handful of dictators while rest of the people refused to work. Socialism tries that, through high tax, but resulting in stagnant economy. Capitalism does not try to suppress but to take use of that; it works the best still, though often resulting in concentration of economy resources. If you can come up one with a <i>perfect</i> system, we will award you with a Nobel Prizes in Peace and Economy.
</p><p>If you think the top level executives make too much, try to start you own company and see how hard it is to even make the minimal wage for yourself and how much you have to bet your life on it up front. Then if you do succeed, you will promptly become one of the selfish executives. If you ever try managing people, you can also see how selfish or lazy your employees can be, especially in the time of company crisis.
</p><p>That's being the case for the last millions of years and may probably be true for the next 1000 years. Maybe until eventually human beings become pets of robots (who will then fight for their own intergalactic interests.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Selfishness is the most important natural characteristics of all lives -- from virus and bacteria to human beings -- that 's why they compete and evolve .
Even though they may act cooperatively sometimes but ultimately they are striking for their own interest .
You can blame God or natural selection , depending whichever you believe .
There is no known system that can effective suppress selfishness .
Communism tried that but resulting in power concentrated in a handful of dictators while rest of the people refused to work .
Socialism tries that , through high tax , but resulting in stagnant economy .
Capitalism does not try to suppress but to take use of that ; it works the best still , though often resulting in concentration of economy resources .
If you can come up one with a perfect system , we will award you with a Nobel Prizes in Peace and Economy .
If you think the top level executives make too much , try to start you own company and see how hard it is to even make the minimal wage for yourself and how much you have to bet your life on it up front .
Then if you do succeed , you will promptly become one of the selfish executives .
If you ever try managing people , you can also see how selfish or lazy your employees can be , especially in the time of company crisis .
That 's being the case for the last millions of years and may probably be true for the next 1000 years .
Maybe until eventually human beings become pets of robots ( who will then fight for their own intergalactic interests .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Selfishness is the most important natural characteristics of all lives -- from virus and bacteria to human beings -- that's why they compete and evolve.
Even though they may act cooperatively sometimes but ultimately they are striking for their own interest.
You can blame God or natural selection, depending whichever you believe.
There is no known system that can effective suppress selfishness.
Communism tried that but resulting in power concentrated in a handful of dictators while rest of the people refused to work.
Socialism tries that, through high tax, but resulting in stagnant economy.
Capitalism does not try to suppress but to take use of that; it works the best still, though often resulting in concentration of economy resources.
If you can come up one with a perfect system, we will award you with a Nobel Prizes in Peace and Economy.
If you think the top level executives make too much, try to start you own company and see how hard it is to even make the minimal wage for yourself and how much you have to bet your life on it up front.
Then if you do succeed, you will promptly become one of the selfish executives.
If you ever try managing people, you can also see how selfish or lazy your employees can be, especially in the time of company crisis.
That's being the case for the last millions of years and may probably be true for the next 1000 years.
Maybe until eventually human beings become pets of robots (who will then fight for their own intergalactic interests.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064684</id>
	<title>I'm thinking about Pizza a few days from now</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1265622540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This is because the average person probably isn't thinking much farther ahead than what he'll have for lunch tomorrow. </i></p><p>I'm pretty average and I'm thinking about pizza a couple of days from now.  You must be pretty smart, to know so much about average people, and pretty arrogant, to be so wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is because the average person probably is n't thinking much farther ahead than what he 'll have for lunch tomorrow .
I 'm pretty average and I 'm thinking about pizza a couple of days from now .
You must be pretty smart , to know so much about average people , and pretty arrogant , to be so wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is because the average person probably isn't thinking much farther ahead than what he'll have for lunch tomorrow.
I'm pretty average and I'm thinking about pizza a couple of days from now.
You must be pretty smart, to know so much about average people, and pretty arrogant, to be so wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064244</id>
	<title>Tag story !surprise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265620620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this the norm for big businesses?  It's sad and all, but why is this news?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this the norm for big businesses ?
It 's sad and all , but why is this news ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this the norm for big businesses?
It's sad and all, but why is this news?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066474</id>
	<title>This burns me</title>
	<author>Dripdry</author>
	<datestamp>1265629500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually know someone who was a Veep at Sun. She is unconcerned at the loss of her job and just purchased her third house on the west coast.</p><p>Take this however you'd like. I think it's obscene, but I don't make the rules.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually know someone who was a Veep at Sun .
She is unconcerned at the loss of her job and just purchased her third house on the west coast.Take this however you 'd like .
I think it 's obscene , but I do n't make the rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually know someone who was a Veep at Sun.
She is unconcerned at the loss of her job and just purchased her third house on the west coast.Take this however you'd like.
I think it's obscene, but I don't make the rules.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064710</id>
	<title>Re:To quote Mel: "Its good to be the King"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265622600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's another quote "Shit flows downhill"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's another quote " Shit flows downhill "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's another quote "Shit flows downhill"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066634</id>
	<title>Wow, you just don't understand any of this, do you</title>
	<author>Estanislao Martínez</author>
	<datestamp>1265630280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I was half-right. Chase bought WaMu, paid off their executives handsomely (one guy who'd been there three weeks got $18M), and then somehow said, "We're buying all the assets, but not the liabilities."</p></div></blockquote><p>All three parts of your claim there are wrong, which makes you completely wrong, not "half-right."  From<nobr> <wbr></nobr><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington\_Mutual" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">:</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><blockquote><div><p>"On September 25, 2008, the United States Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) seized Washington Mutual Bank from Washington Mutual, Inc. and placed it into the receivership of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The OTS took the action due to the withdrawal of $16.4 billion in deposits, during a 10-day bank run (amounting to 9\% of the deposits it had held on June 30, 2008). The FDIC sold the banking subsidiaries (minus unsecured debt or equity claims) to JPMorgan Chase for $1.9 billion, which reopened the bank's offices the next day as JPMorgan Chase branches. The holding company, Washington Mutual, Inc. was left with $33 billion assets, and $8 billion debt, after being stripped of its banking subsidiary by the FDIC. The next day, September 26, Washington Mutual, Inc. filed for Chapter 11 voluntary bankruptcy in Delaware, where it is incorporated."</p></div></blockquote><p>To understand that passage, it's important to know that publically-owned banks in the USA are structured as a public holding company, which privately owns a bank.  This is important because what you bought was shares of Washington Mutual Inc. (let's call it WMI), the holding company for Washington Mutual Bank (WMB).  WMB failed, so the OTS seized it away from WMI and gave it to the FDIC, which then disposes of the assets and liabilities of WMB in order to make insured deposits and secured debtholders whole.  At that point, WMI is bankrupt, so your stock investment is not really worth nothing anymore.

</p><p>But the more important thing to note is that Chase didn't buy WMI from the shareholders; they bought from FDIC the WMB assets and obligations that the FDIC was on the hook for.

</p><p>You're also wrong about the "buying all the assets, but not the liabilities part."  From <a href="http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/wamu.html#possible\_claims" title="fdic.gov" rel="nofollow">the FDIC statement on the closure</a> [fdic.gov]:</p><blockquote><div><p>"Subsequent to the closure, JPMorgan Chase acquired the assets and <b>most of the liabilities, including covered bonds and other secured debt</b>, of Washington Mutual Bank from the FDIC as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank. Any claims by equity, subordinated and senior unsecured debt holders were not acquired."  [my emphasis]</p></div></blockquote><p>This is a standard FDIC bank closure; the FDIC takes care of insured deposits and secured debt of the banks it takes over, and only if there's anything left over from the bank's assets, then unsecured creditors and shareholders get some (in that order).  Chase bought the WMB's assets <b>and all the liabilities that the FDIC is on the hook for</b>.  The liabilities that Chase didn't get are the ones that the FDIC doesn't normally cover.  So basically, the folks who are owed those debts were wiped out by the FDIC takeover, not by the sale to Chase.

</p><p>And thirdly, the WaMu executives that you claim got paid off handsomely were not paid by Chase.  They were paid by WMI, the holding company that went bankrupt.  Though the $17.5 million guy actually declined it:</p><blockquote><div><p>"Chief executive Alan H. Fishman was flying from New York to Seattle on the day the bank was closed, and eventually received a $7.5 million sign-on bonus and cash severance of $11.6 million (which he declined) after being CEO for 17 days."</p></div></blockquote><p>So basically, you made a bet on a bank that was about to fail, without understanding even a single iota of what happens when banks fail, and then you failed to learn how your investment failed.  I can certainly understand and sympathize the part about making the bet on something you don't understand, if you hedge your bet accordingly (which you certainly seem to have done).  What I can't understand is your inability or refusal to actually learn how your investment failed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was half-right .
Chase bought WaMu , paid off their executives handsomely ( one guy who 'd been there three weeks got $ 18M ) , and then somehow said , " We 're buying all the assets , but not the liabilities .
" All three parts of your claim there are wrong , which makes you completely wrong , not " half-right .
" From : [ wikipedia.org ] " On September 25 , 2008 , the United States Office of Thrift Supervision ( OTS ) seized Washington Mutual Bank from Washington Mutual , Inc. and placed it into the receivership of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ( FDIC ) .
The OTS took the action due to the withdrawal of $ 16.4 billion in deposits , during a 10-day bank run ( amounting to 9 \ % of the deposits it had held on June 30 , 2008 ) .
The FDIC sold the banking subsidiaries ( minus unsecured debt or equity claims ) to JPMorgan Chase for $ 1.9 billion , which reopened the bank 's offices the next day as JPMorgan Chase branches .
The holding company , Washington Mutual , Inc. was left with $ 33 billion assets , and $ 8 billion debt , after being stripped of its banking subsidiary by the FDIC .
The next day , September 26 , Washington Mutual , Inc. filed for Chapter 11 voluntary bankruptcy in Delaware , where it is incorporated .
" To understand that passage , it 's important to know that publically-owned banks in the USA are structured as a public holding company , which privately owns a bank .
This is important because what you bought was shares of Washington Mutual Inc. ( let 's call it WMI ) , the holding company for Washington Mutual Bank ( WMB ) .
WMB failed , so the OTS seized it away from WMI and gave it to the FDIC , which then disposes of the assets and liabilities of WMB in order to make insured deposits and secured debtholders whole .
At that point , WMI is bankrupt , so your stock investment is not really worth nothing anymore .
But the more important thing to note is that Chase did n't buy WMI from the shareholders ; they bought from FDIC the WMB assets and obligations that the FDIC was on the hook for .
You 're also wrong about the " buying all the assets , but not the liabilities part .
" From the FDIC statement on the closure [ fdic.gov ] : " Subsequent to the closure , JPMorgan Chase acquired the assets and most of the liabilities , including covered bonds and other secured debt , of Washington Mutual Bank from the FDIC as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank .
Any claims by equity , subordinated and senior unsecured debt holders were not acquired .
" [ my emphasis ] This is a standard FDIC bank closure ; the FDIC takes care of insured deposits and secured debt of the banks it takes over , and only if there 's anything left over from the bank 's assets , then unsecured creditors and shareholders get some ( in that order ) .
Chase bought the WMB 's assets and all the liabilities that the FDIC is on the hook for .
The liabilities that Chase did n't get are the ones that the FDIC does n't normally cover .
So basically , the folks who are owed those debts were wiped out by the FDIC takeover , not by the sale to Chase .
And thirdly , the WaMu executives that you claim got paid off handsomely were not paid by Chase .
They were paid by WMI , the holding company that went bankrupt .
Though the $ 17.5 million guy actually declined it : " Chief executive Alan H. Fishman was flying from New York to Seattle on the day the bank was closed , and eventually received a $ 7.5 million sign-on bonus and cash severance of $ 11.6 million ( which he declined ) after being CEO for 17 days .
" So basically , you made a bet on a bank that was about to fail , without understanding even a single iota of what happens when banks fail , and then you failed to learn how your investment failed .
I can certainly understand and sympathize the part about making the bet on something you do n't understand , if you hedge your bet accordingly ( which you certainly seem to have done ) .
What I ca n't understand is your inability or refusal to actually learn how your investment failed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was half-right.
Chase bought WaMu, paid off their executives handsomely (one guy who'd been there three weeks got $18M), and then somehow said, "We're buying all the assets, but not the liabilities.
"All three parts of your claim there are wrong, which makes you completely wrong, not "half-right.
"  From : [wikipedia.org]"On September 25, 2008, the United States Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) seized Washington Mutual Bank from Washington Mutual, Inc. and placed it into the receivership of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
The OTS took the action due to the withdrawal of $16.4 billion in deposits, during a 10-day bank run (amounting to 9\% of the deposits it had held on June 30, 2008).
The FDIC sold the banking subsidiaries (minus unsecured debt or equity claims) to JPMorgan Chase for $1.9 billion, which reopened the bank's offices the next day as JPMorgan Chase branches.
The holding company, Washington Mutual, Inc. was left with $33 billion assets, and $8 billion debt, after being stripped of its banking subsidiary by the FDIC.
The next day, September 26, Washington Mutual, Inc. filed for Chapter 11 voluntary bankruptcy in Delaware, where it is incorporated.
"To understand that passage, it's important to know that publically-owned banks in the USA are structured as a public holding company, which privately owns a bank.
This is important because what you bought was shares of Washington Mutual Inc. (let's call it WMI), the holding company for Washington Mutual Bank (WMB).
WMB failed, so the OTS seized it away from WMI and gave it to the FDIC, which then disposes of the assets and liabilities of WMB in order to make insured deposits and secured debtholders whole.
At that point, WMI is bankrupt, so your stock investment is not really worth nothing anymore.
But the more important thing to note is that Chase didn't buy WMI from the shareholders; they bought from FDIC the WMB assets and obligations that the FDIC was on the hook for.
You're also wrong about the "buying all the assets, but not the liabilities part.
"  From the FDIC statement on the closure [fdic.gov]:"Subsequent to the closure, JPMorgan Chase acquired the assets and most of the liabilities, including covered bonds and other secured debt, of Washington Mutual Bank from the FDIC as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank.
Any claims by equity, subordinated and senior unsecured debt holders were not acquired.
"  [my emphasis]This is a standard FDIC bank closure; the FDIC takes care of insured deposits and secured debt of the banks it takes over, and only if there's anything left over from the bank's assets, then unsecured creditors and shareholders get some (in that order).
Chase bought the WMB's assets and all the liabilities that the FDIC is on the hook for.
The liabilities that Chase didn't get are the ones that the FDIC doesn't normally cover.
So basically, the folks who are owed those debts were wiped out by the FDIC takeover, not by the sale to Chase.
And thirdly, the WaMu executives that you claim got paid off handsomely were not paid by Chase.
They were paid by WMI, the holding company that went bankrupt.
Though the $17.5 million guy actually declined it:"Chief executive Alan H. Fishman was flying from New York to Seattle on the day the bank was closed, and eventually received a $7.5 million sign-on bonus and cash severance of $11.6 million (which he declined) after being CEO for 17 days.
"So basically, you made a bet on a bank that was about to fail, without understanding even a single iota of what happens when banks fail, and then you failed to learn how your investment failed.
I can certainly understand and sympathize the part about making the bet on something you don't understand, if you hedge your bet accordingly (which you certainly seem to have done).
What I can't understand is your inability or refusal to actually learn how your investment failed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066980</id>
	<title>...and one more thing</title>
	<author>Estanislao Martínez</author>
	<datestamp>1265631960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The stock that was held by John Q. Public (i.e. me) was associated with the organization which retained all the liabilities, and is now worth just a few pennies.</p></div></blockquote><p>And that's not true either, because (a) most of the liabilities of Washington Mutual Bank were in fact acquired by Chase, and (b) the unsecured liabilities are in the hands of the FDIC, which will most likely never have to pay them.  From <a href="http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/wamu.html#possible\_claims" title="fdic.gov" rel="nofollow">the FDIC report on the seizure</a> [fdic.gov]:</p><blockquote><div><p>If you hold senior unsecured debt, subordinated debt, or other claims in Washington Mutual Bank then you should file a claim in the receivership for recovery of any amounts that may be due to you. Please note that under federal law, 12 U.S.C.  1821(d)(11), claims by subordinated debt holders are paid only after all claims by general creditors of the institution. At this time, the FDIC as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank does not anticipate that subordinated debt holders of the bank will receive any recovery on their claims.</p></div></blockquote><p>The holding company didn't get stuck with the liabilities of the seized bank.  Your stock became worthless because the holding company's one big asset, the bank, got seized by the government, and is now mostly an empty shell.

</p><p>Dude, again, if you make an investment and it fails, make sure that in the end you at least understand why it failed.  Otherwise, you've not gained even wisdom from the experience.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The stock that was held by John Q. Public ( i.e .
me ) was associated with the organization which retained all the liabilities , and is now worth just a few pennies.And that 's not true either , because ( a ) most of the liabilities of Washington Mutual Bank were in fact acquired by Chase , and ( b ) the unsecured liabilities are in the hands of the FDIC , which will most likely never have to pay them .
From the FDIC report on the seizure [ fdic.gov ] : If you hold senior unsecured debt , subordinated debt , or other claims in Washington Mutual Bank then you should file a claim in the receivership for recovery of any amounts that may be due to you .
Please note that under federal law , 12 U.S.C .
1821 ( d ) ( 11 ) , claims by subordinated debt holders are paid only after all claims by general creditors of the institution .
At this time , the FDIC as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank does not anticipate that subordinated debt holders of the bank will receive any recovery on their claims.The holding company did n't get stuck with the liabilities of the seized bank .
Your stock became worthless because the holding company 's one big asset , the bank , got seized by the government , and is now mostly an empty shell .
Dude , again , if you make an investment and it fails , make sure that in the end you at least understand why it failed .
Otherwise , you 've not gained even wisdom from the experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The stock that was held by John Q. Public (i.e.
me) was associated with the organization which retained all the liabilities, and is now worth just a few pennies.And that's not true either, because (a) most of the liabilities of Washington Mutual Bank were in fact acquired by Chase, and (b) the unsecured liabilities are in the hands of the FDIC, which will most likely never have to pay them.
From the FDIC report on the seizure [fdic.gov]:If you hold senior unsecured debt, subordinated debt, or other claims in Washington Mutual Bank then you should file a claim in the receivership for recovery of any amounts that may be due to you.
Please note that under federal law, 12 U.S.C.
1821(d)(11), claims by subordinated debt holders are paid only after all claims by general creditors of the institution.
At this time, the FDIC as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank does not anticipate that subordinated debt holders of the bank will receive any recovery on their claims.The holding company didn't get stuck with the liabilities of the seized bank.
Your stock became worthless because the holding company's one big asset, the bank, got seized by the government, and is now mostly an empty shell.
Dude, again, if you make an investment and it fails, make sure that in the end you at least understand why it failed.
Otherwise, you've not gained even wisdom from the experience.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067052</id>
	<title>Re:Link to DailyKos diatribe?</title>
	<author>tigerbody1</author>
	<datestamp>1265632380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is SAP in direct competition with Oracle?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is SAP in direct competition with Oracle ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is SAP in direct competition with Oracle?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064310</id>
	<title>Re:Link to DailyKos diatribe?</title>
	<author>dburkland</author>
	<datestamp>1265620860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nothing like a link to a fanatical left-wing blog to boost your credibility</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing like a link to a fanatical left-wing blog to boost your credibility</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing like a link to a fanatical left-wing blog to boost your credibility</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064986</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265623620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because of accounting issues awarding stock to people does not have to expensed on the P + L whereas paying actual real money does leading to inflated profit figures.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because of accounting issues awarding stock to people does not have to expensed on the P + L whereas paying actual real money does leading to inflated profit figures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because of accounting issues awarding stock to people does not have to expensed on the P + L whereas paying actual real money does leading to inflated profit figures.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065682</id>
	<title>Perhaps it never occurred to you</title>
	<author>turkeyfish</author>
	<datestamp>1265626200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps it never occurred to you that this is precisely why America and Wall Street and your government is broken.</p><p>McNeally and his friends used the SUN board to give themselves plenty of stock at the expense of other shareholder's who were not in a position to do so.  Consequently, they lived well while the company went bankrupt  Its what all US corporations do these days: game the system for the benefit of the insiders at the expense of society.  So when things go South and belly up, they get a big reward and everyone else who try hard to make the system work, just get taken for suckers.  Politicians have adopted the same lack of principles and commitment to the general welfare of the system.</p><p>This is why you are a fool to invest in stocks any longer.  There is no possibility of making a reasonable rate of return in the long run.  The longer you own a stock the more opportunity the Scott McNeally's of the world have to game the system in their favor at your expense.  Wall street is no longer even a zero-sum game.  For the average investor its like pulling the lever on a slot macchine.  The house skims off 80-90\% of the take right off the top.</p><p>So in your mind that ok?</p><p>Fine, then don't bitch about the economy or anything else and welcome to Hell rather than civilization.</p><p>Think about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps it never occurred to you that this is precisely why America and Wall Street and your government is broken.McNeally and his friends used the SUN board to give themselves plenty of stock at the expense of other shareholder 's who were not in a position to do so .
Consequently , they lived well while the company went bankrupt Its what all US corporations do these days : game the system for the benefit of the insiders at the expense of society .
So when things go South and belly up , they get a big reward and everyone else who try hard to make the system work , just get taken for suckers .
Politicians have adopted the same lack of principles and commitment to the general welfare of the system.This is why you are a fool to invest in stocks any longer .
There is no possibility of making a reasonable rate of return in the long run .
The longer you own a stock the more opportunity the Scott McNeally 's of the world have to game the system in their favor at your expense .
Wall street is no longer even a zero-sum game .
For the average investor its like pulling the lever on a slot macchine .
The house skims off 80-90 \ % of the take right off the top.So in your mind that ok ? Fine , then do n't bitch about the economy or anything else and welcome to Hell rather than civilization.Think about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps it never occurred to you that this is precisely why America and Wall Street and your government is broken.McNeally and his friends used the SUN board to give themselves plenty of stock at the expense of other shareholder's who were not in a position to do so.
Consequently, they lived well while the company went bankrupt  Its what all US corporations do these days: game the system for the benefit of the insiders at the expense of society.
So when things go South and belly up, they get a big reward and everyone else who try hard to make the system work, just get taken for suckers.
Politicians have adopted the same lack of principles and commitment to the general welfare of the system.This is why you are a fool to invest in stocks any longer.
There is no possibility of making a reasonable rate of return in the long run.
The longer you own a stock the more opportunity the Scott McNeally's of the world have to game the system in their favor at your expense.
Wall street is no longer even a zero-sum game.
For the average investor its like pulling the lever on a slot macchine.
The house skims off 80-90\% of the take right off the top.So in your mind that ok?Fine, then don't bitch about the economy or anything else and welcome to Hell rather than civilization.Think about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31215254</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1266678480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But don't confuse self-interest with economic self-interest. I mention the "Economic Man" in my Slashdot/Reddit submissions, and even linked to this which talk about it some more:
<a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/59/ceo.html" title="fastcompany.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/59/ceo.html</a> [fastcompany.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>But do n't confuse self-interest with economic self-interest .
I mention the " Economic Man " in my Slashdot/Reddit submissions , and even linked to this which talk about it some more : http : //www.fastcompany.com/magazine/59/ceo.html [ fastcompany.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But don't confuse self-interest with economic self-interest.
I mention the "Economic Man" in my Slashdot/Reddit submissions, and even linked to this which talk about it some more:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/59/ceo.html [fastcompany.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066024</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065126</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>winkydink</author>
	<datestamp>1265624160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Institutional investors, by and large, are a pretty savvy group of people.  If you think that top executives can put one over on this class of investors, then I'm sorry, but you just don't understand how publicly traded companies function wrt investor relations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Institutional investors , by and large , are a pretty savvy group of people .
If you think that top executives can put one over on this class of investors , then I 'm sorry , but you just do n't understand how publicly traded companies function wrt investor relations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Institutional investors, by and large, are a pretty savvy group of people.
If you think that top executives can put one over on this class of investors, then I'm sorry, but you just don't understand how publicly traded companies function wrt investor relations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31166256</id>
	<title>Re:Wow, you just don't understand any of this, do</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1265014860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I appreciate the clarification, but doesn't any of this sound like "shell game" to you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I appreciate the clarification , but does n't any of this sound like " shell game " to you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I appreciate the clarification, but doesn't any of this sound like "shell game" to you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065090</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>Fujisawa Sensei</author>
	<datestamp>1265624100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a peon, and I'm trying to get the most out of the company for my own benefit too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a peon , and I 'm trying to get the most out of the company for my own benefit too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a peon, and I'm trying to get the most out of the company for my own benefit too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065912</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1265627040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And every step you take *away* from government leads you closer to anarchy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And every step you take * away * from government leads you closer to anarchy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And every step you take *away* from government leads you closer to anarchy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065110</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1265624160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The government's job is to protect little guys with no power (the general population) from big guys with lots of power.</p></div><p>That is debatable. I would argue that the proper role of the government is to enforce the laws and that those laws should be strictly limited by what is permissible according to the US Constitution. The US Constitution lays out the case for negative rights or the right to an equal opportunity to the extant that the government will not use its power to make the opportunities explicitly unequal. However, this does NOT mean that the government is responsible for <i>equalization</i> of outcomes. Every time the government uses its power of coercion to "equalize" an outcome in an otherwise free society we take one step further down the road to socialism which is essentially the opposite of freedom. You might agree with that path, but IMHO that is NOT the proper role of government as defined in the US Constitution.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The government 's job is to protect little guys with no power ( the general population ) from big guys with lots of power.That is debatable .
I would argue that the proper role of the government is to enforce the laws and that those laws should be strictly limited by what is permissible according to the US Constitution .
The US Constitution lays out the case for negative rights or the right to an equal opportunity to the extant that the government will not use its power to make the opportunities explicitly unequal .
However , this does NOT mean that the government is responsible for equalization of outcomes .
Every time the government uses its power of coercion to " equalize " an outcome in an otherwise free society we take one step further down the road to socialism which is essentially the opposite of freedom .
You might agree with that path , but IMHO that is NOT the proper role of government as defined in the US Constitution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government's job is to protect little guys with no power (the general population) from big guys with lots of power.That is debatable.
I would argue that the proper role of the government is to enforce the laws and that those laws should be strictly limited by what is permissible according to the US Constitution.
The US Constitution lays out the case for negative rights or the right to an equal opportunity to the extant that the government will not use its power to make the opportunities explicitly unequal.
However, this does NOT mean that the government is responsible for equalization of outcomes.
Every time the government uses its power of coercion to "equalize" an outcome in an otherwise free society we take one step further down the road to socialism which is essentially the opposite of freedom.
You might agree with that path, but IMHO that is NOT the proper role of government as defined in the US Constitution.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067168</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1265633400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least that is what agency theory assumes. I just submitted a Slashdot submission on the flaws of these assumptions:<br>
<a href="http://slashdot.org/submission/1168626/The-flaws-of-shareholder-value-and-agency-theory" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/submission/1168626/The-flaws-of-shareholder-value-and-agency-theory</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least that is what agency theory assumes .
I just submitted a Slashdot submission on the flaws of these assumptions : http : //slashdot.org/submission/1168626/The-flaws-of-shareholder-value-and-agency-theory [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least that is what agency theory assumes.
I just submitted a Slashdot submission on the flaws of these assumptions:
http://slashdot.org/submission/1168626/The-flaws-of-shareholder-value-and-agency-theory [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066552</id>
	<title>Re:To quote Mel: "Its good to be the King"</title>
	<author>hey!</author>
	<datestamp>1265629860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, a priori I'm on board with the "probably a good thing" notion.  However we have a case where we can look at the "good thing" question <em>after the fact</em>.</p><p>So, here's the skinny: they ran the company into the ground, and they to walk away with a fat share of the money that was supposed to compensate the regular stockholders who are left holding shares in the ruined company.</p><p>Probably a good thing?  Well, let's say I'm persuadable that it is less than a wonderful thing. [Note for they irony impaired: "'Litotes'? Now that's a  word you don't hear every day."]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , a priori I 'm on board with the " probably a good thing " notion .
However we have a case where we can look at the " good thing " question after the fact.So , here 's the skinny : they ran the company into the ground , and they to walk away with a fat share of the money that was supposed to compensate the regular stockholders who are left holding shares in the ruined company.Probably a good thing ?
Well , let 's say I 'm persuadable that it is less than a wonderful thing .
[ Note for they irony impaired : " 'Litotes ' ?
Now that 's a word you do n't hear every day .
" ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, a priori I'm on board with the "probably a good thing" notion.
However we have a case where we can look at the "good thing" question after the fact.So, here's the skinny: they ran the company into the ground, and they to walk away with a fat share of the money that was supposed to compensate the regular stockholders who are left holding shares in the ruined company.Probably a good thing?
Well, let's say I'm persuadable that it is less than a wonderful thing.
[Note for they irony impaired: "'Litotes'?
Now that's a  word you don't hear every day.
"]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064882</id>
	<title>Re:Link to DailyKos diatribe?</title>
	<author>spun</author>
	<datestamp>1265623260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's wrong with DailyKos? Do they, you know, actually lie, or do they just say things you don't want to hear? If you think they lie, provide a documented example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's wrong with DailyKos ?
Do they , you know , actually lie , or do they just say things you do n't want to hear ?
If you think they lie , provide a documented example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's wrong with DailyKos?
Do they, you know, actually lie, or do they just say things you don't want to hear?
If you think they lie, provide a documented example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067474</id>
	<title>Typical Screed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265635620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A typical liberal screed with little bearing in reality "a company that ceased to exist" is BS.  Then again, I work for Oracle, and i think we probably got our money's worth in Sun IP.  All the bits of Sun that are out there will continue to my knowledge, so it still exists, it just has a new name.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A typical liberal screed with little bearing in reality " a company that ceased to exist " is BS .
Then again , I work for Oracle , and i think we probably got our money 's worth in Sun IP .
All the bits of Sun that are out there will continue to my knowledge , so it still exists , it just has a new name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A typical liberal screed with little bearing in reality "a company that ceased to exist" is BS.
Then again, I work for Oracle, and i think we probably got our money's worth in Sun IP.
All the bits of Sun that are out there will continue to my knowledge, so it still exists, it just has a new name.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064584</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265622000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
Also, the average person can not be bothered to concern himself
enough so that in the aggregate with other people that person can effect change.</p></div><p>I don't agree.  I think that most people really try hard to make a change, and are really dedicated to work together to -- OMG! PONIES!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , the average person can not be bothered to concern himself enough so that in the aggregate with other people that person can effect change.I do n't agree .
I think that most people really try hard to make a change , and are really dedicated to work together to -- OMG !
PONIES !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Also, the average person can not be bothered to concern himself
enough so that in the aggregate with other people that person can effect change.I don't agree.
I think that most people really try hard to make a change, and are really dedicated to work together to -- OMG!
PONIES!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066682</id>
	<title>See my Slashdot/Reddit submissions</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1265630460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>See my Slashdot and Reddit submissions on the problems of shareholder value and agency theory, it has info on what is happening here:<br>
<a href="http://slashdot.org/submission/1159318/The-problems-of-the-shareholder-value-ideology" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/submission/1159318/The-problems-of-the-shareholder-value-ideology</a> [slashdot.org]
<a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/axwzw/the\_problems\_of\_shareholder\_value\_and\_agency/" title="reddit.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/axwzw/the\_problems\_of\_shareholder\_value\_and\_agency/</a> [reddit.com]
(another new Slashdot submission is coming up soon on this)</htmltext>
<tokenext>See my Slashdot and Reddit submissions on the problems of shareholder value and agency theory , it has info on what is happening here : http : //slashdot.org/submission/1159318/The-problems-of-the-shareholder-value-ideology [ slashdot.org ] http : //www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/axwzw/the \ _problems \ _of \ _shareholder \ _value \ _and \ _agency/ [ reddit.com ] ( another new Slashdot submission is coming up soon on this )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See my Slashdot and Reddit submissions on the problems of shareholder value and agency theory, it has info on what is happening here:
http://slashdot.org/submission/1159318/The-problems-of-the-shareholder-value-ideology [slashdot.org]
http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/axwzw/the\_problems\_of\_shareholder\_value\_and\_agency/ [reddit.com]
(another new Slashdot submission is coming up soon on this)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064560</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1265621940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks Bruce.  Now I'm suicidally depressed...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks Bruce .
Now I 'm suicidally depressed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks Bruce.
Now I'm suicidally depressed...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065342</id>
	<title>Clap Clap...</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1265625000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea Yea Yea... We know the good old simplified that we like to hear.  Where the big bosses are either greedy or idiots, and they do nothing while all their pions do all the work...</p><p>Your attempt is to dehumanize the bosses make them seem sub human so you feel better that you are not a millionaire too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea Yea Yea... We know the good old simplified that we like to hear .
Where the big bosses are either greedy or idiots , and they do nothing while all their pions do all the work...Your attempt is to dehumanize the bosses make them seem sub human so you feel better that you are not a millionaire too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea Yea Yea... We know the good old simplified that we like to hear.
Where the big bosses are either greedy or idiots, and they do nothing while all their pions do all the work...Your attempt is to dehumanize the bosses make them seem sub human so you feel better that you are not a millionaire too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064134</id>
	<title>Easy Solution</title>
	<author>cohensh</author>
	<datestamp>1265620080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If only they would have gone on Undercover Boss.  All would have been solved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If only they would have gone on Undercover Boss .
All would have been solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only they would have gone on Undercover Boss.
All would have been solved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065992</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265627400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yea, the problems of shareholder value and agency theory. After I tried to submit a submission twice that have lots of links on this issue and got rejected, I submitted it to the reddit instead.
Here is the links to the submissions:
<a href="http://slashdot.org/submission/1159318/The-problems-of-the-shareholder-value-ideology" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/submission/1159318/The-problems-of-the-shareholder-value-ideology</a> [slashdot.org]
<a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/axwzw/the\_problems\_of\_shareholder\_value\_and\_agency/" title="reddit.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/axwzw/the\_problems\_of\_shareholder\_value\_and\_agency/</a> [reddit.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , the problems of shareholder value and agency theory .
After I tried to submit a submission twice that have lots of links on this issue and got rejected , I submitted it to the reddit instead .
Here is the links to the submissions : http : //slashdot.org/submission/1159318/The-problems-of-the-shareholder-value-ideology [ slashdot.org ] http : //www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/axwzw/the \ _problems \ _of \ _shareholder \ _value \ _and \ _agency/ [ reddit.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, the problems of shareholder value and agency theory.
After I tried to submit a submission twice that have lots of links on this issue and got rejected, I submitted it to the reddit instead.
Here is the links to the submissions:
http://slashdot.org/submission/1159318/The-problems-of-the-shareholder-value-ideology [slashdot.org]
http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/axwzw/the\_problems\_of\_shareholder\_value\_and\_agency/ [reddit.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067230</id>
	<title>Not Sour Grapes.  Corporate Culture Needs Change</title>
	<author>turkeyfish</author>
	<datestamp>1265633880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its not sour grapes but rather yet another tale of what happens to a society that lets corporate insiders run loose at the expense of employees, shareholders, and taxpayers.  Ignore it at your peril.</p><p>In any event, there is no logical connection to the total amount of money Sun paid to its employees and the money Scott McNeally and other like corporate insiders got by gaming the system for their own benefit.  It is not as if he was using his money to pay the employees.  No, it was mine and as a stockholder of SUN I got my clock cleaned.  Does it matter to you?  Probably not.  Should it? Yes, I think so because when insiders are allowed to game the system for their own advantage, which has become the American Way of Doing Business these days, the entire system is put at risk.  Maybe you haven't noticed but the entire system is not working well, precisely because there are too many Scott McNeallys running around loose in corporate boardrooms with limited or no supervision.</p><p>If I run a red light or make a mistake I should be expected to pay a fine.  The same should be equally true of corporate executives, who destroy entire companies, communities, even nations, with malfeasance and incompetence.  Otherwise, what you are advocating that its perfectly OK for corporate execs, who are driving huge semi-trucks to ignore the red lights.  That shouldn't make you feel smug and secure when you enter an public intersection to make a transaction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not sour grapes but rather yet another tale of what happens to a society that lets corporate insiders run loose at the expense of employees , shareholders , and taxpayers .
Ignore it at your peril.In any event , there is no logical connection to the total amount of money Sun paid to its employees and the money Scott McNeally and other like corporate insiders got by gaming the system for their own benefit .
It is not as if he was using his money to pay the employees .
No , it was mine and as a stockholder of SUN I got my clock cleaned .
Does it matter to you ?
Probably not .
Should it ?
Yes , I think so because when insiders are allowed to game the system for their own advantage , which has become the American Way of Doing Business these days , the entire system is put at risk .
Maybe you have n't noticed but the entire system is not working well , precisely because there are too many Scott McNeallys running around loose in corporate boardrooms with limited or no supervision.If I run a red light or make a mistake I should be expected to pay a fine .
The same should be equally true of corporate executives , who destroy entire companies , communities , even nations , with malfeasance and incompetence .
Otherwise , what you are advocating that its perfectly OK for corporate execs , who are driving huge semi-trucks to ignore the red lights .
That should n't make you feel smug and secure when you enter an public intersection to make a transaction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not sour grapes but rather yet another tale of what happens to a society that lets corporate insiders run loose at the expense of employees, shareholders, and taxpayers.
Ignore it at your peril.In any event, there is no logical connection to the total amount of money Sun paid to its employees and the money Scott McNeally and other like corporate insiders got by gaming the system for their own benefit.
It is not as if he was using his money to pay the employees.
No, it was mine and as a stockholder of SUN I got my clock cleaned.
Does it matter to you?
Probably not.
Should it?
Yes, I think so because when insiders are allowed to game the system for their own advantage, which has become the American Way of Doing Business these days, the entire system is put at risk.
Maybe you haven't noticed but the entire system is not working well, precisely because there are too many Scott McNeallys running around loose in corporate boardrooms with limited or no supervision.If I run a red light or make a mistake I should be expected to pay a fine.
The same should be equally true of corporate executives, who destroy entire companies, communities, even nations, with malfeasance and incompetence.
Otherwise, what you are advocating that its perfectly OK for corporate execs, who are driving huge semi-trucks to ignore the red lights.
That shouldn't make you feel smug and secure when you enter an public intersection to make a transaction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064678</id>
	<title>Re:Well, sure they sucked...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265622540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you meant to be sarcastic, but you are generally correct.</p><p>CEO's that take over failing companies tend to be the highest paid of the bunch. Bankrupting a company leaves a black mark on a CEO's career, limiting the possible future earnings, and unfortunately it is very hard to distinguish between a lousy manager and someone who did an excellent job, but failed to turn the company around due to an already-existing bad situation. As a result, the worse state the company is in, the higher the cash and stock options and a golden parachute have to be to offset the risk taken by trying to fix the company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you meant to be sarcastic , but you are generally correct.CEO 's that take over failing companies tend to be the highest paid of the bunch .
Bankrupting a company leaves a black mark on a CEO 's career , limiting the possible future earnings , and unfortunately it is very hard to distinguish between a lousy manager and someone who did an excellent job , but failed to turn the company around due to an already-existing bad situation .
As a result , the worse state the company is in , the higher the cash and stock options and a golden parachute have to be to offset the risk taken by trying to fix the company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you meant to be sarcastic, but you are generally correct.CEO's that take over failing companies tend to be the highest paid of the bunch.
Bankrupting a company leaves a black mark on a CEO's career, limiting the possible future earnings, and unfortunately it is very hard to distinguish between a lousy manager and someone who did an excellent job, but failed to turn the company around due to an already-existing bad situation.
As a result, the worse state the company is in, the higher the cash and stock options and a golden parachute have to be to offset the risk taken by trying to fix the company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067320</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>htdrifter</author>
	<datestamp>1265634600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If those top managers are being paid in stock instead of in dollars, then clearly they are stockholders and hence their interests are one and the same as the stockholders.</p></div><p>The executives are different then the stockholders in that they make the future.  They have inside information before it becomes inside information and act on it to their own benefit.  Watch the insider trading of a company.</p><p>They regard employees as assets.  They don't layoff people they liquidate assets.</p><p>I've got a merger pen.  I've helped put 2 CFOs and 1 CEO away.  As a result I'm unemployable.  That doesn't matter though because it's about honor not money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If those top managers are being paid in stock instead of in dollars , then clearly they are stockholders and hence their interests are one and the same as the stockholders.The executives are different then the stockholders in that they make the future .
They have inside information before it becomes inside information and act on it to their own benefit .
Watch the insider trading of a company.They regard employees as assets .
They do n't layoff people they liquidate assets.I 've got a merger pen .
I 've helped put 2 CFOs and 1 CEO away .
As a result I 'm unemployable .
That does n't matter though because it 's about honor not money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If those top managers are being paid in stock instead of in dollars, then clearly they are stockholders and hence their interests are one and the same as the stockholders.The executives are different then the stockholders in that they make the future.
They have inside information before it becomes inside information and act on it to their own benefit.
Watch the insider trading of a company.They regard employees as assets.
They don't layoff people they liquidate assets.I've got a merger pen.
I've helped put 2 CFOs and 1 CEO away.
As a result I'm unemployable.
That doesn't matter though because it's about honor not money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064550</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>Publikwerks</author>
	<datestamp>1265621880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I disagree with the form/function of the Government. I think it follows exactly the same for as a corporation. As the stakeholders, politicians have to pretend to be working for us. But they are just like the two tiers of managers. They are always looking out for themselves and looking to advance to the next level.<br> Tell me the last time a politician voted on something they saw as political suicide?
<br>

And as for the motivations of us little people, I think a more accurate description is that we are too busy avoiding getting crushed by corporations and the government to act proactively for change most of the time. Besides, if we had the power to control our own fate, we would just give it back as we are too short sighted to handle it</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree with the form/function of the Government .
I think it follows exactly the same for as a corporation .
As the stakeholders , politicians have to pretend to be working for us .
But they are just like the two tiers of managers .
They are always looking out for themselves and looking to advance to the next level .
Tell me the last time a politician voted on something they saw as political suicide ?
And as for the motivations of us little people , I think a more accurate description is that we are too busy avoiding getting crushed by corporations and the government to act proactively for change most of the time .
Besides , if we had the power to control our own fate , we would just give it back as we are too short sighted to handle it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree with the form/function of the Government.
I think it follows exactly the same for as a corporation.
As the stakeholders, politicians have to pretend to be working for us.
But they are just like the two tiers of managers.
They are always looking out for themselves and looking to advance to the next level.
Tell me the last time a politician voted on something they saw as political suicide?
And as for the motivations of us little people, I think a more accurate description is that we are too busy avoiding getting crushed by corporations and the government to act proactively for change most of the time.
Besides, if we had the power to control our own fate, we would just give it back as we are too short sighted to handle it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064946</id>
	<title>Re:What a great success story...</title>
	<author>\_Sprocket\_</author>
	<datestamp>1265623440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This seems to be a very successful formula for many executives over the last decade.  Not that society benefits from all this "creative destruction" to enrich a few people.</p></div><p>But to be fair - isn't this the real story of Silicon Valley?  It seems there's always a failing company that was the new, disruptive company not long before that.  Of course, most companies never get to be the new success.  And a very few companies survive success.</p><p>Heck - a company could be doing everything it was doing during it's halcyon days and yet still go out of business because of other influences in the industry around it.  In short, it doesn't have to be YOU driving the company in to the ground.  Others can do that very well for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems to be a very successful formula for many executives over the last decade .
Not that society benefits from all this " creative destruction " to enrich a few people.But to be fair - is n't this the real story of Silicon Valley ?
It seems there 's always a failing company that was the new , disruptive company not long before that .
Of course , most companies never get to be the new success .
And a very few companies survive success.Heck - a company could be doing everything it was doing during it 's halcyon days and yet still go out of business because of other influences in the industry around it .
In short , it does n't have to be YOU driving the company in to the ground .
Others can do that very well for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems to be a very successful formula for many executives over the last decade.
Not that society benefits from all this "creative destruction" to enrich a few people.But to be fair - isn't this the real story of Silicon Valley?
It seems there's always a failing company that was the new, disruptive company not long before that.
Of course, most companies never get to be the new success.
And a very few companies survive success.Heck - a company could be doing everything it was doing during it's halcyon days and yet still go out of business because of other influences in the industry around it.
In short, it doesn't have to be YOU driving the company in to the ground.
Others can do that very well for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31068216</id>
	<title>Re:To quote Mel: "Its good to be the King"</title>
	<author>Billly Gates</author>
	<datestamp>1265644140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What makes me more angry is the fact that these institutions get stocks from the IPO for 1/10 what you and I pay for them. The exception was with google.</p><p>If a company starts initially at $40/share, wamu and boA get the same stick for $5/share and flip it and sell it to us for $40.</p><p>How is that fair?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What makes me more angry is the fact that these institutions get stocks from the IPO for 1/10 what you and I pay for them .
The exception was with google.If a company starts initially at $ 40/share , wamu and boA get the same stick for $ 5/share and flip it and sell it to us for $ 40.How is that fair ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What makes me more angry is the fact that these institutions get stocks from the IPO for 1/10 what you and I pay for them.
The exception was with google.If a company starts initially at $40/share, wamu and boA get the same stick for $5/share and flip it and sell it to us for $40.How is that fair?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064288</id>
	<title>Re:To quote Mel: "Its good to be the King"</title>
	<author>eln</author>
	<datestamp>1265620740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>While there's no doubt golden parachutes in contracts are often excessive, in this case (from a quick scan of the article), the bulk of the compensation these guys received are from the buyout of the stock.  They owned lots of stock (due to stock grants and options from the company, most likely), and so they get a big payout when Oracle buys all of that stock.  Yes, they got a straight cash parachute too, but the bulk seems to be from stock.
<br> <br>
So, isn't the fact that they owned a lot of stock in the company, and thus their personal fortunes were tied directly to the company's performance, a good thing?  We can argue all day as to whether or not their compensation in general was excessive (and it probably was), but it seems to me the fact that most of their golden parachute was due to the buyout of stock they already owned is a good thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While there 's no doubt golden parachutes in contracts are often excessive , in this case ( from a quick scan of the article ) , the bulk of the compensation these guys received are from the buyout of the stock .
They owned lots of stock ( due to stock grants and options from the company , most likely ) , and so they get a big payout when Oracle buys all of that stock .
Yes , they got a straight cash parachute too , but the bulk seems to be from stock .
So , is n't the fact that they owned a lot of stock in the company , and thus their personal fortunes were tied directly to the company 's performance , a good thing ?
We can argue all day as to whether or not their compensation in general was excessive ( and it probably was ) , but it seems to me the fact that most of their golden parachute was due to the buyout of stock they already owned is a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While there's no doubt golden parachutes in contracts are often excessive, in this case (from a quick scan of the article), the bulk of the compensation these guys received are from the buyout of the stock.
They owned lots of stock (due to stock grants and options from the company, most likely), and so they get a big payout when Oracle buys all of that stock.
Yes, they got a straight cash parachute too, but the bulk seems to be from stock.
So, isn't the fact that they owned a lot of stock in the company, and thus their personal fortunes were tied directly to the company's performance, a good thing?
We can argue all day as to whether or not their compensation in general was excessive (and it probably was), but it seems to me the fact that most of their golden parachute was due to the buyout of stock they already owned is a good thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067400</id>
	<title>To quote another movie:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265635080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal: you invested in a failing institution, that cratered completely.  Stockholders are reimbursed after creditors, but if they could even pay their creditors they wouldn't have gone under. You get *NOTHING*!  You lose!  Good DAY, sir!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all there , black and white , clear as crystal : you invested in a failing institution , that cratered completely .
Stockholders are reimbursed after creditors , but if they could even pay their creditors they would n't have gone under .
You get * NOTHING * !
You lose !
Good DAY , sir !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal: you invested in a failing institution, that cratered completely.
Stockholders are reimbursed after creditors, but if they could even pay their creditors they wouldn't have gone under.
You get *NOTHING*!
You lose!
Good DAY, sir!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065512</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>Magnus Pym</author>
	<datestamp>1265625540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Studies conducted in academia about decision-making process in corporations have proved beyond a shadow of doubt that most corporations are run by managers for managers.</p><p>There is some pretense of working for the shareholders, but most corporations these days don't even bother claiming to take their customers' or employees' interests into account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Studies conducted in academia about decision-making process in corporations have proved beyond a shadow of doubt that most corporations are run by managers for managers.There is some pretense of working for the shareholders , but most corporations these days do n't even bother claiming to take their customers ' or employees ' interests into account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Studies conducted in academia about decision-making process in corporations have proved beyond a shadow of doubt that most corporations are run by managers for managers.There is some pretense of working for the shareholders, but most corporations these days don't even bother claiming to take their customers' or employees' interests into account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065594</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265625780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>Tell me the last time a politician voted on something they saw as political suicide?<br></i></p><p>And if it was a political suicide, why on earth would doing that be in YOUR best interest, should you be one of people that voted for that politician?</p><p>Truth is there is often conflict between what you WANT to do, and what you CAN do; and the real trick is finding proper balance to get as much for what you want within means of what you can.<br>And do this for short-, medium- and long-term goals.</p><p>It is sad that politicians are often viewed as animals of different origin than other people, but truth is that you don't become politician primarily to make yourself rich. Mostly they are somewhat regular human beings that try to gear world towards what they think is right. The end result may not look like that, but that has a lot to do with differing ideas of the "better world", not to mention other agents with very much competing goals (like for-profit corporations; other countries etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell me the last time a politician voted on something they saw as political suicide ? And if it was a political suicide , why on earth would doing that be in YOUR best interest , should you be one of people that voted for that politician ? Truth is there is often conflict between what you WANT to do , and what you CAN do ; and the real trick is finding proper balance to get as much for what you want within means of what you can.And do this for short- , medium- and long-term goals.It is sad that politicians are often viewed as animals of different origin than other people , but truth is that you do n't become politician primarily to make yourself rich .
Mostly they are somewhat regular human beings that try to gear world towards what they think is right .
The end result may not look like that , but that has a lot to do with differing ideas of the " better world " , not to mention other agents with very much competing goals ( like for-profit corporations ; other countries etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell me the last time a politician voted on something they saw as political suicide?And if it was a political suicide, why on earth would doing that be in YOUR best interest, should you be one of people that voted for that politician?Truth is there is often conflict between what you WANT to do, and what you CAN do; and the real trick is finding proper balance to get as much for what you want within means of what you can.And do this for short-, medium- and long-term goals.It is sad that politicians are often viewed as animals of different origin than other people, but truth is that you don't become politician primarily to make yourself rich.
Mostly they are somewhat regular human beings that try to gear world towards what they think is right.
The end result may not look like that, but that has a lot to do with differing ideas of the "better world", not to mention other agents with very much competing goals (like for-profit corporations; other countries etc).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066166</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>shadowofwind</author>
	<datestamp>1265628120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the problem can be fixed one company at a time, by giving the company a charter or 'constitution' of sorts for how power is distributed and behavior is rewarded.  Most companies are currently despotic in their structure, much how western nations were a few hundred years ago.  People build them this way because that's how people are for the most part.  Its what they want.  The people who started the company created it in large part so that they could exploit the people further down the pyramid, whether that's what they call it or not.  Or maybe they created it for other reasons, but they didn't take steps to ensure that people wouldn't be abused, and then later other people moved in that had different motives.  If you got a bunch of people together who were more honest, I think they could set up a system of checks and balances that would work better.</p><p>I'm game for trying it, but I've never met very many people who thought that the current system was broken, and that were honest about their own role in it.  So I think we approximately have what we deserve.</p><p>Oh, and thanks for the efence.  It doesn't work for the applications I write currently, but I got a lot of mileage out of it years back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the problem can be fixed one company at a time , by giving the company a charter or 'constitution ' of sorts for how power is distributed and behavior is rewarded .
Most companies are currently despotic in their structure , much how western nations were a few hundred years ago .
People build them this way because that 's how people are for the most part .
Its what they want .
The people who started the company created it in large part so that they could exploit the people further down the pyramid , whether that 's what they call it or not .
Or maybe they created it for other reasons , but they did n't take steps to ensure that people would n't be abused , and then later other people moved in that had different motives .
If you got a bunch of people together who were more honest , I think they could set up a system of checks and balances that would work better.I 'm game for trying it , but I 've never met very many people who thought that the current system was broken , and that were honest about their own role in it .
So I think we approximately have what we deserve.Oh , and thanks for the efence .
It does n't work for the applications I write currently , but I got a lot of mileage out of it years back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the problem can be fixed one company at a time, by giving the company a charter or 'constitution' of sorts for how power is distributed and behavior is rewarded.
Most companies are currently despotic in their structure, much how western nations were a few hundred years ago.
People build them this way because that's how people are for the most part.
Its what they want.
The people who started the company created it in large part so that they could exploit the people further down the pyramid, whether that's what they call it or not.
Or maybe they created it for other reasons, but they didn't take steps to ensure that people wouldn't be abused, and then later other people moved in that had different motives.
If you got a bunch of people together who were more honest, I think they could set up a system of checks and balances that would work better.I'm game for trying it, but I've never met very many people who thought that the current system was broken, and that were honest about their own role in it.
So I think we approximately have what we deserve.Oh, and thanks for the efence.
It doesn't work for the applications I write currently, but I got a lot of mileage out of it years back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31070908</id>
	<title>Re:Link to DailyKos diatribe?</title>
	<author>cthulhu11</author>
	<datestamp>1265724540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"many IT budgets just couldn't justify paying the extra cash for the few extras Sun brought to the equation."

The x4??? boxes talk to the serial console right out of the box, and it can be used to configured IP on the service processor network and jumpstart the OS -- no need to keep a stupid VGA monitor and keyboard around, no need to try to talk non-English speaking local hands through configuration.  I've yet to see x86 boxes from any other vendor for which this is true -- it sure ain't of HP's boxes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" many IT budgets just could n't justify paying the extra cash for the few extras Sun brought to the equation .
" The x4 ? ? ?
boxes talk to the serial console right out of the box , and it can be used to configured IP on the service processor network and jumpstart the OS -- no need to keep a stupid VGA monitor and keyboard around , no need to try to talk non-English speaking local hands through configuration .
I 've yet to see x86 boxes from any other vendor for which this is true -- it sure ai n't of HP 's boxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"many IT budgets just couldn't justify paying the extra cash for the few extras Sun brought to the equation.
"

The x4???
boxes talk to the serial console right out of the box, and it can be used to configured IP on the service processor network and jumpstart the OS -- no need to keep a stupid VGA monitor and keyboard around, no need to try to talk non-English speaking local hands through configuration.
I've yet to see x86 boxes from any other vendor for which this is true -- it sure ain't of HP's boxes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066744</id>
	<title>Maybe Oracle is on the way down.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265630760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A different opinion: Maybe the combination of Sun and Oracle will be called
Snoracle.

<br> <br>I think Oracle is on the way down. In the future, companies will run
cheap, redundant hardware with <a href="http://www.postgresql.org/" title="postgresql.org" rel="nofollow">PostgreSQL.</a> [postgresql.org]

<br> <br>Google is already doing something like that. You can see for yourself:
<a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001\_3-10209580-92.html" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">Google uncloaks once-secret server</a> [cnet.com].

<br> <br>A lot of what caused the purchase of expensive Sun servers in the past
was ignorance. CEOs could be convinced the spending a lot of money with Sun
was the only way to have enterprise operations, and they bought Sun equipment
rather than using Linux and PostgreSQL. Now there is less ignorance. Many
corporate needs can be served with much less expense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A different opinion : Maybe the combination of Sun and Oracle will be called Snoracle .
I think Oracle is on the way down .
In the future , companies will run cheap , redundant hardware with PostgreSQL .
[ postgresql.org ] Google is already doing something like that .
You can see for yourself : Google uncloaks once-secret server [ cnet.com ] .
A lot of what caused the purchase of expensive Sun servers in the past was ignorance .
CEOs could be convinced the spending a lot of money with Sun was the only way to have enterprise operations , and they bought Sun equipment rather than using Linux and PostgreSQL .
Now there is less ignorance .
Many corporate needs can be served with much less expense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A different opinion: Maybe the combination of Sun and Oracle will be called
Snoracle.
I think Oracle is on the way down.
In the future, companies will run
cheap, redundant hardware with PostgreSQL.
[postgresql.org]

 Google is already doing something like that.
You can see for yourself:
Google uncloaks once-secret server [cnet.com].
A lot of what caused the purchase of expensive Sun servers in the past
was ignorance.
CEOs could be convinced the spending a lot of money with Sun
was the only way to have enterprise operations, and they bought Sun equipment
rather than using Linux and PostgreSQL.
Now there is less ignorance.
Many
corporate needs can be served with much less expense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064434</id>
	<title>Re:To quote Mel: "Its good to be the King"</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1265621340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jonathan Schwartz is some sort of magical pirate ninja.</p><p>Plenty of people could have actively worked to drive Sun into a cliff and still end up doing a worse job of it than he did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jonathan Schwartz is some sort of magical pirate ninja.Plenty of people could have actively worked to drive Sun into a cliff and still end up doing a worse job of it than he did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jonathan Schwartz is some sort of magical pirate ninja.Plenty of people could have actively worked to drive Sun into a cliff and still end up doing a worse job of it than he did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066758</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>Gr8Apes</author>
	<datestamp>1265630880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Darn it - wrong mod - posting to remove.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Darn it - wrong mod - posting to remove .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Darn it - wrong mod - posting to remove.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067586</id>
	<title>Re:How Companies Work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265636820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A few years ago, executives were being threatened with prison for that sort of thing.  The SEC has made it pretty clear that that's a huge no-no.</p><p>Mind you they always find ways around those pesky rules...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A few years ago , executives were being threatened with prison for that sort of thing .
The SEC has made it pretty clear that that 's a huge no-no.Mind you they always find ways around those pesky rules.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few years ago, executives were being threatened with prison for that sort of thing.
The SEC has made it pretty clear that that's a huge no-no.Mind you they always find ways around those pesky rules...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065280</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31068130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31068168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31068228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31068074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31068028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31215254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066024
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31166256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31068216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_08_1732204_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31070908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_1732204.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_1732204.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_1732204.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064398
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31068028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066744
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31070908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_1732204.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_1732204.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_1732204.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_1732204.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_1732204.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_1732204.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065762
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066408
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067656
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065280
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067586
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064550
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31068130
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065594
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066024
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31215254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31068074
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31068228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_1732204.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31068168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066552
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065478
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065682
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31065326
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067400
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066980
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31068216
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31066634
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31166256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_1732204.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31067230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_08_1732204.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_08_1732204.31064134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
