<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_12_0158223</id>
	<title>Facebook Now Supports Jabber/XMPP</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1265995560000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>supersloshy writes <i>"Facebook Chat has so far only been meant to be used in a web browser, and instant messaging applications have had a hard time implementing its undocumented protocol. Today, Facebook is making this job much easier by <a href="http://developers.facebook.com/news.php?blog=1&amp;story=361">enabling support for XMPP</a> to access its chat service. AOL's <a href="http://products.aim.com/beta">AIM</a> and the <a href="http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/02/facebook-chat-officialy-coming-to.html">Empathy Instant Messenger</a> are also including pre-set Facebook options, due to already supporting XMPP."</i>

Here are <a href="http://www.facebook.com/sitetour/chat.php">instructions for setting up XMPP Facebook chat</a> with popular instant messaging clients, including Pidgin and Adium.</htmltext>
<tokenext>supersloshy writes " Facebook Chat has so far only been meant to be used in a web browser , and instant messaging applications have had a hard time implementing its undocumented protocol .
Today , Facebook is making this job much easier by enabling support for XMPP to access its chat service .
AOL 's AIM and the Empathy Instant Messenger are also including pre-set Facebook options , due to already supporting XMPP .
" Here are instructions for setting up XMPP Facebook chat with popular instant messaging clients , including Pidgin and Adium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>supersloshy writes "Facebook Chat has so far only been meant to be used in a web browser, and instant messaging applications have had a hard time implementing its undocumented protocol.
Today, Facebook is making this job much easier by enabling support for XMPP to access its chat service.
AOL's AIM and the Empathy Instant Messenger are also including pre-set Facebook options, due to already supporting XMPP.
"

Here are instructions for setting up XMPP Facebook chat with popular instant messaging clients, including Pidgin and Adium.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109878</id>
	<title>No security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265913900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I couldn't help but notice the conspicuous instructions to "Uncheck TLS/SSL security" in each of the clients.<br>I really hope that doesn't come back to bite anyone in the ass, there's enough spam on other parts of Facebook already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't help but notice the conspicuous instructions to " Uncheck TLS/SSL security " in each of the clients.I really hope that does n't come back to bite anyone in the ass , there 's enough spam on other parts of Facebook already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't help but notice the conspicuous instructions to "Uncheck TLS/SSL security" in each of the clients.I really hope that doesn't come back to bite anyone in the ass, there's enough spam on other parts of Facebook already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31111028</id>
	<title>So?</title>
	<author>RDeichsel</author>
	<datestamp>1265974140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Give them digits: (000) 000-0000</htmltext>
<tokenext>Give them digits : ( 000 ) 000-0000</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give them digits: (000) 000-0000</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110088</id>
	<title>Re:Federation?</title>
	<author>earnest murderer</author>
	<datestamp>1265916960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, MS and AOL committed to the gub'mint back in the 90's to cooperate and make their networks play nice with each others.</p><p>It's basically taken being made irrelevant to get XMPP support in AIM. A decade later neither AOL or Microsoft talk to each other but their users have found ways to talk around them.</p><p>Google's "chat" applications are a complete mess but at least you can talk to them with a non-google client. But what the hell is their deal, they support AIM, but not 3rd party XMPP servers?!<br>Not that it would matter much, their contact management system leaves much to be desired and Google won't be going anywhere on this front until they fix it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , MS and AOL committed to the gub'mint back in the 90 's to cooperate and make their networks play nice with each others.It 's basically taken being made irrelevant to get XMPP support in AIM .
A decade later neither AOL or Microsoft talk to each other but their users have found ways to talk around them.Google 's " chat " applications are a complete mess but at least you can talk to them with a non-google client .
But what the hell is their deal , they support AIM , but not 3rd party XMPP servers ?
! Not that it would matter much , their contact management system leaves much to be desired and Google wo n't be going anywhere on this front until they fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, MS and AOL committed to the gub'mint back in the 90's to cooperate and make their networks play nice with each others.It's basically taken being made irrelevant to get XMPP support in AIM.
A decade later neither AOL or Microsoft talk to each other but their users have found ways to talk around them.Google's "chat" applications are a complete mess but at least you can talk to them with a non-google client.
But what the hell is their deal, they support AIM, but not 3rd party XMPP servers?
!Not that it would matter much, their contact management system leaves much to be desired and Google won't be going anywhere on this front until they fix it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109902</id>
	<title>Yet another IM. . .</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1265914260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just what the world needs. *Another* IM service. I suppose I can see Facebook's reasoning for doing this. . . they want to be a complete 'social' solution, and don't want to be reliant on MSN, AOL, Google, or anyone else for their IM service. I suppose, all things considered, that at least opening it up with XMPP is fairly 'enlightened' of them, but it really seems like the whole 'genre' of Instant Messaging platforms has been one big cluster-f**k since day one. If email worked like IM, we'd all have to have 10 email accounts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just what the world needs .
* Another * IM service .
I suppose I can see Facebook 's reasoning for doing this .
. .
they want to be a complete 'social ' solution , and do n't want to be reliant on MSN , AOL , Google , or anyone else for their IM service .
I suppose , all things considered , that at least opening it up with XMPP is fairly 'enlightened ' of them , but it really seems like the whole 'genre ' of Instant Messaging platforms has been one big cluster-f * * k since day one .
If email worked like IM , we 'd all have to have 10 email accounts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just what the world needs.
*Another* IM service.
I suppose I can see Facebook's reasoning for doing this.
. .
they want to be a complete 'social' solution, and don't want to be reliant on MSN, AOL, Google, or anyone else for their IM service.
I suppose, all things considered, that at least opening it up with XMPP is fairly 'enlightened' of them, but it really seems like the whole 'genre' of Instant Messaging platforms has been one big cluster-f**k since day one.
If email worked like IM, we'd all have to have 10 email accounts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31116052</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another IM. . .</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1266002160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just what the world needs. *Another* IM service.</p></div><p>Facebook <em>already was</em> another IM service.  They had their instant messenger built into their website.  The only difference is now you can access it via XMPP.</p><p>This is a very welcome change from my perspective.  There are people who mostly contacted me via Facebook and Facebook chat.  Being able to participate in chats with these people without using the chat system on the Facebook web page is very nice.  (I understand there were other solutions to that problem, too - I didn't explore these, and am very glad to see that I don't have to.)  I don't even care if they don't enable federation with other XMPP servers - it's nice just to be able to use the XMPP protocol to access their chat system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just what the world needs .
* Another * IM service.Facebook already was another IM service .
They had their instant messenger built into their website .
The only difference is now you can access it via XMPP.This is a very welcome change from my perspective .
There are people who mostly contacted me via Facebook and Facebook chat .
Being able to participate in chats with these people without using the chat system on the Facebook web page is very nice .
( I understand there were other solutions to that problem , too - I did n't explore these , and am very glad to see that I do n't have to .
) I do n't even care if they do n't enable federation with other XMPP servers - it 's nice just to be able to use the XMPP protocol to access their chat system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just what the world needs.
*Another* IM service.Facebook already was another IM service.
They had their instant messenger built into their website.
The only difference is now you can access it via XMPP.This is a very welcome change from my perspective.
There are people who mostly contacted me via Facebook and Facebook chat.
Being able to participate in chats with these people without using the chat system on the Facebook web page is very nice.
(I understand there were other solutions to that problem, too - I didn't explore these, and am very glad to see that I don't have to.
)  I don't even care if they don't enable federation with other XMPP servers - it's nice just to be able to use the XMPP protocol to access their chat system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31115582</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another IM. . .</title>
	<author>Voyager529</author>
	<datestamp>1266000420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If email worked like IM, we'd all have to have 10 email accounts.</p></div><p>My list of e-mail accounts goes to 11.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If email worked like IM , we 'd all have to have 10 email accounts.My list of e-mail accounts goes to 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If email worked like IM, we'd all have to have 10 email accounts.My list of e-mail accounts goes to 11.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31114686</id>
	<title>Re:Grammar Nazi says: It's "its", not "it's"!</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1265996880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couldn't we put the correct usage of "it's" in a FAQ or something and stop talking about it here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't we put the correct usage of " it 's " in a FAQ or something and stop talking about it here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't we put the correct usage of "it's" in a FAQ or something and stop talking about it here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109788</id>
	<title>Steam Chat</title>
	<author>bucky0</author>
	<datestamp>1265912940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man, if steam chat would support jabber, I would be a step closer to combining all my communication to the same program. Valve probably wouldn't do it though<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man , if steam chat would support jabber , I would be a step closer to combining all my communication to the same program .
Valve probably would n't do it though : /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man, if steam chat would support jabber, I would be a step closer to combining all my communication to the same program.
Valve probably wouldn't do it though :/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110874</id>
	<title>Re:No security</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265971740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL. What would be the point in using encryption to connect to a server that is not trustworthy in the first place?<br>Besides: Is you e-mail encrypted?</p><p>And it&rsquo;s far from the worst WTF.<br>The worst WTF is, that in order to use it, you have to give them your <em>phone number</em>!!!<br>Yeah right. What&rsquo;s next? A body cavity search?</p><p>Luckily I don&rsquo;t have to, so I won&rsquo;t. Facebook can seriously just fuck right off!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL .
What would be the point in using encryption to connect to a server that is not trustworthy in the first place ? Besides : Is you e-mail encrypted ? And it    s far from the worst WTF.The worst WTF is , that in order to use it , you have to give them your phone number ! !
! Yeah right .
What    s next ?
A body cavity search ? Luckily I don    t have to , so I won    t .
Facebook can seriously just fuck right off !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL.
What would be the point in using encryption to connect to a server that is not trustworthy in the first place?Besides: Is you e-mail encrypted?And it’s far from the worst WTF.The worst WTF is, that in order to use it, you have to give them your phone number!!
!Yeah right.
What’s next?
A body cavity search?Luckily I don’t have to, so I won’t.
Facebook can seriously just fuck right off!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31114904</id>
	<title>Re:Kopete does not work</title>
	<author>kbahey</author>
	<datestamp>1265997600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Found a partial solution. It is not XMPP based, but rather uses JSON to interface directly to Facebook.</p><p>It is in the Ubuntu repository as kopete-facebook. Install that package and you are good to go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Found a partial solution .
It is not XMPP based , but rather uses JSON to interface directly to Facebook.It is in the Ubuntu repository as kopete-facebook .
Install that package and you are good to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Found a partial solution.
It is not XMPP based, but rather uses JSON to interface directly to Facebook.It is in the Ubuntu repository as kopete-facebook.
Install that package and you are good to go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31113516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110338</id>
	<title>Quality of Service</title>
	<author>TangoMargarine</author>
	<datestamp>1266007200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this mean that facebook chat will be any more reliable than it was before, or will it still be buggy as heck? I got so tired of "oh sorry, we lied, this person isn't actually online at the moment..." that I signed out months ago.</p><p>Also, yay for Pidgin! I upgraded from 2.6.1 to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.5, but once I remembered my password it seems to work fine so far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean that facebook chat will be any more reliable than it was before , or will it still be buggy as heck ?
I got so tired of " oh sorry , we lied , this person is n't actually online at the moment... " that I signed out months ago.Also , yay for Pidgin !
I upgraded from 2.6.1 to .5 , but once I remembered my password it seems to work fine so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean that facebook chat will be any more reliable than it was before, or will it still be buggy as heck?
I got so tired of "oh sorry, we lied, this person isn't actually online at the moment..." that I signed out months ago.Also, yay for Pidgin!
I upgraded from 2.6.1 to .5, but once I remembered my password it seems to work fine so far.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31111036</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another IM. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265974260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's the whole point of XMPP. If all IM was XMPP then IM WOULD work like e-mail.</p> </div><p>You mean 95+ percent of it would be spam?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the whole point of XMPP .
If all IM was XMPP then IM WOULD work like e-mail .
You mean 95 + percent of it would be spam ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the whole point of XMPP.
If all IM was XMPP then IM WOULD work like e-mail.
You mean 95+ percent of it would be spam?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110474</id>
	<title>Why would I change?</title>
	<author>cmunic8r99</author>
	<datestamp>1265966460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think this is so revolutionary for existing Pidgin users.  I've had the Facebook plugin (http://code.google.com/p/pidgin-facebookchat) for Pidgin for a while now.  What reasons are there to switch from this to XMPP?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think this is so revolutionary for existing Pidgin users .
I 've had the Facebook plugin ( http : //code.google.com/p/pidgin-facebookchat ) for Pidgin for a while now .
What reasons are there to switch from this to XMPP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think this is so revolutionary for existing Pidgin users.
I've had the Facebook plugin (http://code.google.com/p/pidgin-facebookchat) for Pidgin for a while now.
What reasons are there to switch from this to XMPP?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109924</id>
	<title>Grammar Nazi says: It's "its", not "it's"!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265914560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>have had a hard time implementing <b>it's</b> undocumented protocol.</p></div><p>Obviously not as hard of a time as certain people have using a certain possessive pronoun!<br>It's "its", not "it's", you itsy bitsy tiny grammar weenie, you!</p><p>Timothy might as well change his nickname to icanhazgrammur.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>have had a hard time implementing it 's undocumented protocol.Obviously not as hard of a time as certain people have using a certain possessive pronoun ! It 's " its " , not " it 's " , you itsy bitsy tiny grammar weenie , you ! Timothy might as well change his nickname to icanhazgrammur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>have had a hard time implementing it's undocumented protocol.Obviously not as hard of a time as certain people have using a certain possessive pronoun!It's "its", not "it's", you itsy bitsy tiny grammar weenie, you!Timothy might as well change his nickname to icanhazgrammur.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31115164</id>
	<title>Re:plausible deniability at work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265998740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Naturally of course, after spending 5 hours getting the stupid plugin to install they allow all XMPP acess</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Naturally of course , after spending 5 hours getting the stupid plugin to install they allow all XMPP acess</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Naturally of course, after spending 5 hours getting the stupid plugin to install they allow all XMPP acess</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31113820</id>
	<title>Re:Bitlbee and other gateways</title>
	<author>shish</author>
	<datestamp>1265993760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just signed in via bitlbee with no problem, so either they've removed this feature or it only applies to specific people</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just signed in via bitlbee with no problem , so either they 've removed this feature or it only applies to specific people</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just signed in via bitlbee with no problem, so either they've removed this feature or it only applies to specific people</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109936</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another IM. . .</title>
	<author>Denis Lemire</author>
	<datestamp>1265914680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the whole point of XMPP. If all IM was XMPP then IM WOULD work like e-mail. For this to work, Facebook still needs to enable Federation but it's a huge step in the right direction. The world needs more XMPP networks. Once the number of XMPP IM users outnumber the users of legacy "cluster-f**k" proprietary protocols it will become common sense to drop the proprietary garbage in order to gain interoperability with everyone else. What a nice utopia that would be.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the whole point of XMPP .
If all IM was XMPP then IM WOULD work like e-mail .
For this to work , Facebook still needs to enable Federation but it 's a huge step in the right direction .
The world needs more XMPP networks .
Once the number of XMPP IM users outnumber the users of legacy " cluster-f * * k " proprietary protocols it will become common sense to drop the proprietary garbage in order to gain interoperability with everyone else .
What a nice utopia that would be .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the whole point of XMPP.
If all IM was XMPP then IM WOULD work like e-mail.
For this to work, Facebook still needs to enable Federation but it's a huge step in the right direction.
The world needs more XMPP networks.
Once the number of XMPP IM users outnumber the users of legacy "cluster-f**k" proprietary protocols it will become common sense to drop the proprietary garbage in order to gain interoperability with everyone else.
What a nice utopia that would be.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109900</id>
	<title>Re:Federation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265914200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope so too.  Google didn't have federation at first, but eventually it got sorted and now it just works.  I'll dance the day Yahoo adds a Jabber federation gateway to their IM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope so too .
Google did n't have federation at first , but eventually it got sorted and now it just works .
I 'll dance the day Yahoo adds a Jabber federation gateway to their IM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope so too.
Google didn't have federation at first, but eventually it got sorted and now it just works.
I'll dance the day Yahoo adds a Jabber federation gateway to their IM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110724</id>
	<title>Little something for the old farts too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265969580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I demand irc.facebook.com !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I demand irc.facebook.com !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I demand irc.facebook.com !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109916</id>
	<title>Re:No Kopete?</title>
	<author>aphid\_attraction</author>
	<datestamp>1265914500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They havn't included Kopete, which is the default IM ckient in KDE, in the instruction. And I demand they include Kopete.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></div><p>Relax bro. Get hold of ur emotional volcano and take a look at this : <a href="http://digitizor.com/2010/02/11/how-to-enable-facebook-chat-in-kopete-without-plugins/" title="digitizor.com" rel="nofollow">http://digitizor.com/2010/02/11/how-to-enable-facebook-chat-in-kopete-without-plugins/</a> [digitizor.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They hav n't included Kopete , which is the default IM ckient in KDE , in the instruction .
And I demand they include Kopete .
: /Relax bro .
Get hold of ur emotional volcano and take a look at this : http : //digitizor.com/2010/02/11/how-to-enable-facebook-chat-in-kopete-without-plugins/ [ digitizor.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They havn't included Kopete, which is the default IM ckient in KDE, in the instruction.
And I demand they include Kopete.
:/Relax bro.
Get hold of ur emotional volcano and take a look at this : http://digitizor.com/2010/02/11/how-to-enable-facebook-chat-in-kopete-without-plugins/ [digitizor.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110902</id>
	<title>perfect!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265972340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what a move! Now finally I can stop evangelism for xmpp. Now I instantly have more friend on xmpp than on skype. Nice!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what a move !
Now finally I can stop evangelism for xmpp .
Now I instantly have more friend on xmpp than on skype .
Nice !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what a move!
Now finally I can stop evangelism for xmpp.
Now I instantly have more friend on xmpp than on skype.
Nice!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109884</id>
	<title>XMPP keeps getting more support</title>
	<author>Vyse of Arcadia</author>
	<datestamp>1265913960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And I'm glad to hear it! Everyone seems to be moving towards one open protocol (starting with Google Talk) instead of the sea of protocols out there already.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I 'm glad to hear it !
Everyone seems to be moving towards one open protocol ( starting with Google Talk ) instead of the sea of protocols out there already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I'm glad to hear it!
Everyone seems to be moving towards one open protocol (starting with Google Talk) instead of the sea of protocols out there already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31111912</id>
	<title>bckwrds</title>
	<author>hey</author>
	<datestamp>1265984520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I logged in with Pidgin.</p><p>Its weird everyone logs in with the username "bckwrds". Really - <a href="http://www.facebook.com/sitetour/chat.php" title="facebook.com">http://www.facebook.com/sitetour/chat.php</a> [facebook.com]</p><p>Too bad SSL / TLS isn't supported.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I logged in with Pidgin.Its weird everyone logs in with the username " bckwrds " .
Really - http : //www.facebook.com/sitetour/chat.php [ facebook.com ] Too bad SSL / TLS is n't supported .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I logged in with Pidgin.Its weird everyone logs in with the username "bckwrds".
Really - http://www.facebook.com/sitetour/chat.php [facebook.com]Too bad SSL / TLS isn't supported.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31117074</id>
	<title>Re:Bitlbee and other gateways</title>
	<author>Upsilonish</author>
	<datestamp>1266006900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It works for me in bitlbee (but then I use my own server). However, all the names come up as u09876543562 etc instead of showing the display name, any non-manual way to get around that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It works for me in bitlbee ( but then I use my own server ) .
However , all the names come up as u09876543562 etc instead of showing the display name , any non-manual way to get around that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It works for me in bitlbee (but then I use my own server).
However, all the names come up as u09876543562 etc instead of showing the display name, any non-manual way to get around that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110070</id>
	<title>Re:Steam Chat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265916660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Came here to post this, found out I was beaten by the FP. Are you listening Valve???<br>
&nbsp; <br>Somebody mod this up. Between gchat and steam, that covers 90\% of my non-buisness e-socialization. Also it'd be nice to message the server admin on his phone to rcon in and reboot the server when he's not at his computer (never, it seems like).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Came here to post this , found out I was beaten by the FP .
Are you listening Valve ? ? ?
  Somebody mod this up .
Between gchat and steam , that covers 90 \ % of my non-buisness e-socialization .
Also it 'd be nice to message the server admin on his phone to rcon in and reboot the server when he 's not at his computer ( never , it seems like ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Came here to post this, found out I was beaten by the FP.
Are you listening Valve???
  Somebody mod this up.
Between gchat and steam, that covers 90\% of my non-buisness e-socialization.
Also it'd be nice to message the server admin on his phone to rcon in and reboot the server when he's not at his computer (never, it seems like).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31111760</id>
	<title>bitlbee</title>
	<author>jollyhockysticks</author>
	<datestamp>1265983200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi,<br>
&nbsp; I managed to get bitlbee to log in ( i've written some php to log into facebook using curl for me from the server in question, and it spoofs the user agent. It was tricky but do-able )</p><p>but the downside is, all the usernames show up as u987654321 or whatever so you still have no idea who is who anyway.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:( boo, so still no real fb chat in bitlbee for now</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi ,   I managed to get bitlbee to log in ( i 've written some php to log into facebook using curl for me from the server in question , and it spoofs the user agent .
It was tricky but do-able ) but the downside is , all the usernames show up as u987654321 or whatever so you still have no idea who is who anyway .
: ( boo , so still no real fb chat in bitlbee for now</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi,
  I managed to get bitlbee to log in ( i've written some php to log into facebook using curl for me from the server in question, and it spoofs the user agent.
It was tricky but do-able )but the downside is, all the usernames show up as u987654321 or whatever so you still have no idea who is who anyway.
:( boo, so still no real fb chat in bitlbee for now</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110098</id>
	<title>Re:No security</title>
	<author>earnest murderer</author>
	<datestamp>1265917080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure it will be fine. It's not like you can setup shop with a sniffer in a busy coffee shop and expect to get any traffic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure it will be fine .
It 's not like you can setup shop with a sniffer in a busy coffee shop and expect to get any traffic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure it will be fine.
It's not like you can setup shop with a sniffer in a busy coffee shop and expect to get any traffic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31114520</id>
	<title>Re:FUCKING BASTARDS!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265996340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+1 Flamebait. Exactly what I meant it to be.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Yes, this was a flame. Against the fuckers at Facebook. And I&rsquo;m fucking proud of it!</p><p>Oh, and NO. I do not have <em>anything</em> in my Facebook profile, except contacts to write messages to, because I have no choice. I would not have any account there if I could. Thank my idiot friends. I hope they get viruses and go to jail for a botnet client saving child porn on their systems!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 Flamebait .
Exactly what I meant it to be .
: ) Yes , this was a flame .
Against the fuckers at Facebook .
And I    m fucking proud of it ! Oh , and NO .
I do not have anything in my Facebook profile , except contacts to write messages to , because I have no choice .
I would not have any account there if I could .
Thank my idiot friends .
I hope they get viruses and go to jail for a botnet client saving child porn on their systems !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 Flamebait.
Exactly what I meant it to be.
:)Yes, this was a flame.
Against the fuckers at Facebook.
And I’m fucking proud of it!Oh, and NO.
I do not have anything in my Facebook profile, except contacts to write messages to, because I have no choice.
I would not have any account there if I could.
Thank my idiot friends.
I hope they get viruses and go to jail for a botnet client saving child porn on their systems!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31113526</id>
	<title>Re:changes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265992680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been chatting on fb through digsby for a long time. Why is it news that you can suddenly start using an all-in-one IM client on it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been chatting on fb through digsby for a long time .
Why is it news that you can suddenly start using an all-in-one IM client on it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been chatting on fb through digsby for a long time.
Why is it news that you can suddenly start using an all-in-one IM client on it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110074</id>
	<title>XMPP Gateway, Not Full-Fledged Service</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265916720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FWIW, Facebook is operating a gateway that allows xmpp users to connect to the Facebook chat service. For the time being, xmpp features like presence, capabilities discovery, file transfers and calling are not available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FWIW , Facebook is operating a gateway that allows xmpp users to connect to the Facebook chat service .
For the time being , xmpp features like presence , capabilities discovery , file transfers and calling are not available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FWIW, Facebook is operating a gateway that allows xmpp users to connect to the Facebook chat service.
For the time being, xmpp features like presence, capabilities discovery, file transfers and calling are not available.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110564</id>
	<title>Re:No security</title>
	<author>The Good Reverend</author>
	<datestamp>1265967660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where do you see spam on Facebook? I'm a pretty heavy user of the site, and besides 1-2 odd friend requests every month (usually devoid of info, not selling me something), I don't get anything unsolicited there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where do you see spam on Facebook ?
I 'm a pretty heavy user of the site , and besides 1-2 odd friend requests every month ( usually devoid of info , not selling me something ) , I do n't get anything unsolicited there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where do you see spam on Facebook?
I'm a pretty heavy user of the site, and besides 1-2 odd friend requests every month (usually devoid of info, not selling me something), I don't get anything unsolicited there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31111908</id>
	<title>Re:Server-to-Server Communication?</title>
	<author>xer.xes</author>
	<datestamp>1265984460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You get the '503: Service Unavailable' when you entered your password wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You get the '503 : Service Unavailable ' when you entered your password wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You get the '503: Service Unavailable' when you entered your password wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109954</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109784</id>
	<title>changes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265912880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:), finally, facebook does something right besides the creation of the site itself</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first : ) , finally , facebook does something right besides the creation of the site itself</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first :), finally, facebook does something right besides the creation of the site itself</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31113516</id>
	<title>Kopete does not work</title>
	<author>kbahey</author>
	<datestamp>1265992620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would instantly allow me to use my usual desktop chat client to connect to non-tech people who I am friends with.</p><p>But, Kopete on Kubuntu 9.10 does not work. I get this error message:</p><p>"There was a negotiation error. Unsupported protocol version. XMPP 1.0 is required."</p><p>Is there a solution to this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would instantly allow me to use my usual desktop chat client to connect to non-tech people who I am friends with.But , Kopete on Kubuntu 9.10 does not work .
I get this error message : " There was a negotiation error .
Unsupported protocol version .
XMPP 1.0 is required .
" Is there a solution to this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would instantly allow me to use my usual desktop chat client to connect to non-tech people who I am friends with.But, Kopete on Kubuntu 9.10 does not work.
I get this error message:"There was a negotiation error.
Unsupported protocol version.
XMPP 1.0 is required.
"Is there a solution to this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31114528</id>
	<title>Re:No DATA security</title>
	<author>kwerle</author>
	<datestamp>1265996340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was worried about this, too.  I sniffed the connection, and it turns out that they use SASL during the authentication process - so your password is safe, though your communications are not.</p><p>At least I presume your data does not get encrypted - didn't test that...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was worried about this , too .
I sniffed the connection , and it turns out that they use SASL during the authentication process - so your password is safe , though your communications are not.At least I presume your data does not get encrypted - did n't test that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was worried about this, too.
I sniffed the connection, and it turns out that they use SASL during the authentication process - so your password is safe, though your communications are not.At least I presume your data does not get encrypted - didn't test that...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110030</id>
	<title>Re:No security</title>
	<author>esmrg</author>
	<datestamp>1265916000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, so? Now you can use OTR (off the record encryption) which provides all the privacy you couldn't get before. No need for protocol encryption. All with the comfort of your familiar IM client.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , so ?
Now you can use OTR ( off the record encryption ) which provides all the privacy you could n't get before .
No need for protocol encryption .
All with the comfort of your familiar IM client .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, so?
Now you can use OTR (off the record encryption) which provides all the privacy you couldn't get before.
No need for protocol encryption.
All with the comfort of your familiar IM client.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109954</id>
	<title>Server-to-Server Communication?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265914860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When are they going to support XMPP server-to-server communication so I can chat with my Facebook friends while logged onto a non-facebook XMPP server (that isn't AOL or another big org)?</p><p>I tried their Pidgin instructions (to connect to the Facebook XMPP server and use my Facebook account to chat), and it failed: 503: Service Unavailable  Slashdotted?</p><p>When they (like Google Talk) support full server-to-server, THAT will be a good day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When are they going to support XMPP server-to-server communication so I can chat with my Facebook friends while logged onto a non-facebook XMPP server ( that is n't AOL or another big org ) ? I tried their Pidgin instructions ( to connect to the Facebook XMPP server and use my Facebook account to chat ) , and it failed : 503 : Service Unavailable Slashdotted ? When they ( like Google Talk ) support full server-to-server , THAT will be a good day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When are they going to support XMPP server-to-server communication so I can chat with my Facebook friends while logged onto a non-facebook XMPP server (that isn't AOL or another big org)?I tried their Pidgin instructions (to connect to the Facebook XMPP server and use my Facebook account to chat), and it failed: 503: Service Unavailable  Slashdotted?When they (like Google Talk) support full server-to-server, THAT will be a good day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109814</id>
	<title>plausible deniability at work</title>
	<author>mwilliamson</author>
	<datestamp>1265913180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been using the pidgin plugin for a while now, but it seems a little flaky.  This will be rather nice to have a standards-based protocol.  This also means I have plausible deniability now as to whether or not I'm logged into facebook all day.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using the pidgin plugin for a while now , but it seems a little flaky .
This will be rather nice to have a standards-based protocol .
This also means I have plausible deniability now as to whether or not I 'm logged into facebook all day .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using the pidgin plugin for a while now, but it seems a little flaky.
This will be rather nice to have a standards-based protocol.
This also means I have plausible deniability now as to whether or not I'm logged into facebook all day.
;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109944</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another IM. . .</title>
	<author>keeboo</author>
	<datestamp>1265914800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just what the world needs. *Another* IM service. I suppose I can see Facebook's reasoning for doing this. . . they want to be a complete 'social' solution, and don't want to be reliant on MSN, AOL, Google, or anyone else for their IM service. I suppose, all things considered, that at least opening it up with XMPP is fairly 'enlightened' of them, but it really seems like the whole 'genre' of Instant Messaging platforms has been one big cluster-f**k since day one. If email worked like IM, we'd all have to have 10 email accounts.</p></div><p>Well, XMPP itself is an attempt to standardize that mess.<br>
If Facebook does not talk with other XMPP servers, it's their own fault. Google Talk does, and many other XMPP account providers aswell.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just what the world needs .
* Another * IM service .
I suppose I can see Facebook 's reasoning for doing this .
. .
they want to be a complete 'social ' solution , and do n't want to be reliant on MSN , AOL , Google , or anyone else for their IM service .
I suppose , all things considered , that at least opening it up with XMPP is fairly 'enlightened ' of them , but it really seems like the whole 'genre ' of Instant Messaging platforms has been one big cluster-f * * k since day one .
If email worked like IM , we 'd all have to have 10 email accounts.Well , XMPP itself is an attempt to standardize that mess .
If Facebook does not talk with other XMPP servers , it 's their own fault .
Google Talk does , and many other XMPP account providers aswell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just what the world needs.
*Another* IM service.
I suppose I can see Facebook's reasoning for doing this.
. .
they want to be a complete 'social' solution, and don't want to be reliant on MSN, AOL, Google, or anyone else for their IM service.
I suppose, all things considered, that at least opening it up with XMPP is fairly 'enlightened' of them, but it really seems like the whole 'genre' of Instant Messaging platforms has been one big cluster-f**k since day one.
If email worked like IM, we'd all have to have 10 email accounts.Well, XMPP itself is an attempt to standardize that mess.
If Facebook does not talk with other XMPP servers, it's their own fault.
Google Talk does, and many other XMPP account providers aswell.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31112844</id>
	<title>Re:FUCKING BASTARDS!</title>
	<author>Andy Dodd</author>
	<datestamp>1265989440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm, either you have no clue, or Facebook changed account creation policy recently.  I never had to provide my phone number at registration (although I did add it to my profile later with privacy restrictions on it.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , either you have no clue , or Facebook changed account creation policy recently .
I never had to provide my phone number at registration ( although I did add it to my profile later with privacy restrictions on it .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, either you have no clue, or Facebook changed account creation policy recently.
I never had to provide my phone number at registration (although I did add it to my profile later with privacy restrictions on it.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31116816</id>
	<title>Re:No Kopete?</title>
	<author>michaelhood</author>
	<datestamp>1266005700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They havn't included Kopete, which is the default IM ckient in KDE, in the instruction. And I demand they include Kopete.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></div><p>Maybe you and the seven other guys using KDE as your WM, and the two of you which still use Kopete, can get together and contrib that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They hav n't included Kopete , which is the default IM ckient in KDE , in the instruction .
And I demand they include Kopete .
: /Maybe you and the seven other guys using KDE as your WM , and the two of you which still use Kopete , can get together and contrib that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They havn't included Kopete, which is the default IM ckient in KDE, in the instruction.
And I demand they include Kopete.
:/Maybe you and the seven other guys using KDE as your WM, and the two of you which still use Kopete, can get together and contrib that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110768</id>
	<title>two years later...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265970180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they said they had this working forever ago didn't they? well, at least they finally put out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they said they had this working forever ago did n't they ?
well , at least they finally put out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they said they had this working forever ago didn't they?
well, at least they finally put out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110968</id>
	<title>What about others?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265973240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So did the Internet2.edu, billion dollar making companies which XMPP became de-facto standard, Google and Facebook giants pick the wrong protocol to begin with?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So did the Internet2.edu , billion dollar making companies which XMPP became de-facto standard , Google and Facebook giants pick the wrong protocol to begin with ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So did the Internet2.edu, billion dollar making companies which XMPP became de-facto standard, Google and Facebook giants pick the wrong protocol to begin with?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31114512</id>
	<title>Re:Kopete does not work</title>
	<author>inasity\_rules</author>
	<datestamp>1265996280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not so far, but empathy and pidgin work. I prefer kopete, but until it is fixed, empathy seems decent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not so far , but empathy and pidgin work .
I prefer kopete , but until it is fixed , empathy seems decent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not so far, but empathy and pidgin work.
I prefer kopete, but until it is fixed, empathy seems decent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31113516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31114032</id>
	<title>Re:No security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265994540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From <a href="http://www.facebook.com/help/?topic=chatclient#!/help/?page=824" title="facebook.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [facebook.com]:</p><blockquote><div><p>Does Facebook Chat support SSL?<br>No. At this time, Facebook Chat does not support SSL.</p><p>Does Facebook Chat use plaintext authentication?<br>No. Facebook Chat uses DIGEST-MD5 during authentication.</p><p>Are my Chat messages encrypted?<br>No. However, authentication information is secured using DIGEST-MD5</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From here [ facebook.com ] : Does Facebook Chat support SSL ? No .
At this time , Facebook Chat does not support SSL.Does Facebook Chat use plaintext authentication ? No .
Facebook Chat uses DIGEST-MD5 during authentication.Are my Chat messages encrypted ? No .
However , authentication information is secured using DIGEST-MD5</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From here [facebook.com]:Does Facebook Chat support SSL?No.
At this time, Facebook Chat does not support SSL.Does Facebook Chat use plaintext authentication?No.
Facebook Chat uses DIGEST-MD5 during authentication.Are my Chat messages encrypted?No.
However, authentication information is secured using DIGEST-MD5
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109998</id>
	<title>Re:No security</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265915580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What can SSL possibly have with spam?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What can SSL possibly have with spam ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What can SSL possibly have with spam?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109812</id>
	<title>No Kopete?</title>
	<author>kai\_hiwatari</author>
	<datestamp>1265913180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They havn't included Kopete, which is the default IM ckient in KDE, in the instruction. And I demand they include Kopete.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</htmltext>
<tokenext>They hav n't included Kopete , which is the default IM ckient in KDE , in the instruction .
And I demand they include Kopete .
: /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They havn't included Kopete, which is the default IM ckient in KDE, in the instruction.
And I demand they include Kopete.
:/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110018</id>
	<title>Re:Federation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265915880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given that the interserver federation in xmpp doesn't scale well ( see <a href="http://about.psyc.eu/Jabber#Scalability" title="about.psyc.eu" rel="nofollow">http://about.psyc.eu/Jabber#Scalability</a> [about.psyc.eu] ), I'm guessing the thought of federation is too scary an option for facebook. 60\% of the packets in an xmpp network are presence packets and xmpp uses an extremely naive way of distributing these (i.e. it sends an xmpp presence message for each user in the buddy list, even if many of the users are on the same xmpp server and the presence packet could be only sent once for all of them and exploded by the server at the other end). This probably wouldn't be too much of an issue if not many people have buddies on other xmpp servers, but could be disastrous if it becomes popular. I'm guessing they'd also be reticent to do this because it would decrease their lockin of users, if you don't need a facebook account to talk to facebook users why would you bother using facebook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that the interserver federation in xmpp does n't scale well ( see http : //about.psyc.eu/Jabber # Scalability [ about.psyc.eu ] ) , I 'm guessing the thought of federation is too scary an option for facebook .
60 \ % of the packets in an xmpp network are presence packets and xmpp uses an extremely naive way of distributing these ( i.e .
it sends an xmpp presence message for each user in the buddy list , even if many of the users are on the same xmpp server and the presence packet could be only sent once for all of them and exploded by the server at the other end ) .
This probably would n't be too much of an issue if not many people have buddies on other xmpp servers , but could be disastrous if it becomes popular .
I 'm guessing they 'd also be reticent to do this because it would decrease their lockin of users , if you do n't need a facebook account to talk to facebook users why would you bother using facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that the interserver federation in xmpp doesn't scale well ( see http://about.psyc.eu/Jabber#Scalability [about.psyc.eu] ), I'm guessing the thought of federation is too scary an option for facebook.
60\% of the packets in an xmpp network are presence packets and xmpp uses an extremely naive way of distributing these (i.e.
it sends an xmpp presence message for each user in the buddy list, even if many of the users are on the same xmpp server and the presence packet could be only sent once for all of them and exploded by the server at the other end).
This probably wouldn't be too much of an issue if not many people have buddies on other xmpp servers, but could be disastrous if it becomes popular.
I'm guessing they'd also be reticent to do this because it would decrease their lockin of users, if you don't need a facebook account to talk to facebook users why would you bother using facebook.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31119830</id>
	<title>Re:Steam Chat</title>
	<author>Tolkien</author>
	<datestamp>1265971200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hear hear!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hear hear !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hear hear!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31111550</id>
	<title>Re:Federation?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1265980740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> This probably wouldn't be too much of an issue if not many people have buddies on other xmpp servers, but could be disastrous if it becomes popular</p> </div><p>No, that's not the issue.  It's a problem if lots of people have multiple buddies on the same remote server.  XMPP was designed to follow the email model, where you have lots of small servers (for a few people, maybe a company, possibly for users of an ISP who don't have another server they can use).  In this case, it is entirely reasonable to send a copy of the presence stanza to each remote server.  It's only if most of your contacts are on the same server, but it is not the server that you are using, where this is a problem.  In that case, there will be some redundant server-to-server data.  </p><p>
Saying that this means that it 'doesn't scale well' is  hyperbole to put it mildly.  Even the article you link to doesn't say that, it simply says that it's possible to improve the scalability.  I run a Jabber server with just a few users and, although my numbers for stanzas reflect theirs, they are misleading.  Most presence stanzas that I receive are quite small compared to message and info-query stanzas, so the numbers are very different when you look at the total bandwidth used by each one.  The shortest message stanza that I could find in my log was 20\% longer than the longest presence stanza.  A typical message stanza is 200-300\% the size of a typical presence stanza.
</p><p>
Note that, if both servers support XEP-33, then this problem doesn't exist at all; they can use the extended addressing to send a single copy of the stanza to the remote server, without any modification to the client or the core protocol.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This probably would n't be too much of an issue if not many people have buddies on other xmpp servers , but could be disastrous if it becomes popular No , that 's not the issue .
It 's a problem if lots of people have multiple buddies on the same remote server .
XMPP was designed to follow the email model , where you have lots of small servers ( for a few people , maybe a company , possibly for users of an ISP who do n't have another server they can use ) .
In this case , it is entirely reasonable to send a copy of the presence stanza to each remote server .
It 's only if most of your contacts are on the same server , but it is not the server that you are using , where this is a problem .
In that case , there will be some redundant server-to-server data .
Saying that this means that it 'does n't scale well ' is hyperbole to put it mildly .
Even the article you link to does n't say that , it simply says that it 's possible to improve the scalability .
I run a Jabber server with just a few users and , although my numbers for stanzas reflect theirs , they are misleading .
Most presence stanzas that I receive are quite small compared to message and info-query stanzas , so the numbers are very different when you look at the total bandwidth used by each one .
The shortest message stanza that I could find in my log was 20 \ % longer than the longest presence stanza .
A typical message stanza is 200-300 \ % the size of a typical presence stanza .
Note that , if both servers support XEP-33 , then this problem does n't exist at all ; they can use the extended addressing to send a single copy of the stanza to the remote server , without any modification to the client or the core protocol .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This probably wouldn't be too much of an issue if not many people have buddies on other xmpp servers, but could be disastrous if it becomes popular No, that's not the issue.
It's a problem if lots of people have multiple buddies on the same remote server.
XMPP was designed to follow the email model, where you have lots of small servers (for a few people, maybe a company, possibly for users of an ISP who don't have another server they can use).
In this case, it is entirely reasonable to send a copy of the presence stanza to each remote server.
It's only if most of your contacts are on the same server, but it is not the server that you are using, where this is a problem.
In that case, there will be some redundant server-to-server data.
Saying that this means that it 'doesn't scale well' is  hyperbole to put it mildly.
Even the article you link to doesn't say that, it simply says that it's possible to improve the scalability.
I run a Jabber server with just a few users and, although my numbers for stanzas reflect theirs, they are misleading.
Most presence stanzas that I receive are quite small compared to message and info-query stanzas, so the numbers are very different when you look at the total bandwidth used by each one.
The shortest message stanza that I could find in my log was 20\% longer than the longest presence stanza.
A typical message stanza is 200-300\% the size of a typical presence stanza.
Note that, if both servers support XEP-33, then this problem doesn't exist at all; they can use the extended addressing to send a single copy of the stanza to the remote server, without any modification to the client or the core protocol.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109988</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another IM. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265915400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely you have had at least 10 email accounts...I don't remember the passwords to all of them (or the user names for that matter) but the same is true for IM accounts.</p><p>If we are talking active accounts, I also have about the same number for each.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely you have had at least 10 email accounts...I do n't remember the passwords to all of them ( or the user names for that matter ) but the same is true for IM accounts.If we are talking active accounts , I also have about the same number for each .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely you have had at least 10 email accounts...I don't remember the passwords to all of them (or the user names for that matter) but the same is true for IM accounts.If we are talking active accounts, I also have about the same number for each.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31114274</id>
	<title>Re:FUCKING BASTARDS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265995440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <strong>YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM YOUR PHONE NUMBER!</strong></p> </div><p>No you don't.</p><p>(why does the filter count excessive caps in a quote!! ffs)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM YOUR PHONE NUMBER !
No you do n't .
( why does the filter count excessive caps in a quote ! !
ffs )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM YOUR PHONE NUMBER!
No you don't.
(why does the filter count excessive caps in a quote!!
ffs)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110766</id>
	<title>Re:Why would I change?</title>
	<author>am 2k</author>
	<datestamp>1265970180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The old plugin basically sends HTTP requests and parses the HTML results. It only worked sporadically here, and sometimes caused continuous connect/disconnect cycles (causing me to get blocked temporarily by Facebook several times). The XMPP gateway seems to be very solid, and it moved the responsibility for compatibility from the client to the server, where they have a much more direct interface to the system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The old plugin basically sends HTTP requests and parses the HTML results .
It only worked sporadically here , and sometimes caused continuous connect/disconnect cycles ( causing me to get blocked temporarily by Facebook several times ) .
The XMPP gateway seems to be very solid , and it moved the responsibility for compatibility from the client to the server , where they have a much more direct interface to the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The old plugin basically sends HTTP requests and parses the HTML results.
It only worked sporadically here, and sometimes caused continuous connect/disconnect cycles (causing me to get blocked temporarily by Facebook several times).
The XMPP gateway seems to be very solid, and it moved the responsibility for compatibility from the client to the server, where they have a much more direct interface to the system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110840</id>
	<title>FUCKING BASTARDS!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265971320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, they offer Jabber support. But if you want to use it, you have to have a user name.<br>But to have that, <strong>YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM YOUR PHONE NUMBER!</strong></p><p>Yeah, right. Not in a <em>thousand</em> years!!!</p><p>WTF? Fuck you, Failbook!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , they offer Jabber support .
But if you want to use it , you have to have a user name.But to have that , YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM YOUR PHONE NUMBER ! Yeah , right .
Not in a thousand years ! ! ! WTF ?
Fuck you , Failbook !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, they offer Jabber support.
But if you want to use it, you have to have a user name.But to have that, YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM YOUR PHONE NUMBER!Yeah, right.
Not in a thousand years!!!WTF?
Fuck you, Failbook!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110696</id>
	<title>Re:Bitlbee and other gateways</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265969160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting enough, I logged in with bitlbee from a same ip address range as my browsing computer and I didn't see that kind of messages. (An old version of bitlbee didn' t handle the authentication, update solved the problem)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting enough , I logged in with bitlbee from a same ip address range as my browsing computer and I did n't see that kind of messages .
( An old version of bitlbee didn ' t handle the authentication , update solved the problem )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting enough, I logged in with bitlbee from a same ip address range as my browsing computer and I didn't see that kind of messages.
(An old version of bitlbee didn' t handle the authentication, update solved the problem)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109820</id>
	<title>Federation?</title>
	<author>Denis Lemire</author>
	<datestamp>1265913240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now if only they'd setup federation so people can talk to those on Facebook from their own XMPP domain. This combined with Google Talk can bring XMPP near the critical mass of users necessary to finally abandon the proprietary protocols I've despised for so long. Good riddance Windows/MSN/Live Messenger! I look forward to the not-so-distant future where everyone can communicate on IM without having accounts with several non-interoperable  IM networks. Wishful thinking?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if only they 'd setup federation so people can talk to those on Facebook from their own XMPP domain .
This combined with Google Talk can bring XMPP near the critical mass of users necessary to finally abandon the proprietary protocols I 've despised for so long .
Good riddance Windows/MSN/Live Messenger !
I look forward to the not-so-distant future where everyone can communicate on IM without having accounts with several non-interoperable IM networks .
Wishful thinking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if only they'd setup federation so people can talk to those on Facebook from their own XMPP domain.
This combined with Google Talk can bring XMPP near the critical mass of users necessary to finally abandon the proprietary protocols I've despised for so long.
Good riddance Windows/MSN/Live Messenger!
I look forward to the not-so-distant future where everyone can communicate on IM without having accounts with several non-interoperable  IM networks.
Wishful thinking?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31112936</id>
	<title>Dealbreaker: no SSL/TLS</title>
	<author>base3</author>
	<datestamp>1265989860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When they support encryption, I'll give it a try.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When they support encryption , I 'll give it a try .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they support encryption, I'll give it a try.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31113382</id>
	<title>They want your cellphone number</title>
	<author>sigdrifa</author>
	<datestamp>1265992020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just took a look at the instructions mentioned in the summary.

Unfortunately you have to verify your account to pick a user name - and in order to do so you have to give them your cellphone number. I'd rather live with the proprietary protocols, thank you very much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just took a look at the instructions mentioned in the summary .
Unfortunately you have to verify your account to pick a user name - and in order to do so you have to give them your cellphone number .
I 'd rather live with the proprietary protocols , thank you very much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just took a look at the instructions mentioned in the summary.
Unfortunately you have to verify your account to pick a user name - and in order to do so you have to give them your cellphone number.
I'd rather live with the proprietary protocols, thank you very much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31114622</id>
	<title>At last!</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1265996640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I look forward to finally having a standard protocol IM that I can avoid. Until than I'm forced to avoid IM using proprietary protocols.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I look forward to finally having a standard protocol IM that I can avoid .
Until than I 'm forced to avoid IM using proprietary protocols .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I look forward to finally having a standard protocol IM that I can avoid.
Until than I'm forced to avoid IM using proprietary protocols.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31111754</id>
	<title>Localization problems</title>
	<author>Kooothor</author>
	<datestamp>1265983020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey,

I'm experiencing troubles while trying to connect to the xmpp facebook account with Finch from my shell in Germany. Facebook tells me I connect from an unusual location (usually I connect from France or Sweden), and that it isn't bad but they block the chat anyway.... -\_-' Anyone has had the same troubles ? How to resolve it ? Thanks. Screen : <a href="http://nsa13.casimages.com/img/2010/02/12/10021201582580101.png" title="casimages.com" rel="nofollow">http://nsa13.casimages.com/img/2010/02/12/10021201582580101.png</a> [casimages.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , I 'm experiencing troubles while trying to connect to the xmpp facebook account with Finch from my shell in Germany .
Facebook tells me I connect from an unusual location ( usually I connect from France or Sweden ) , and that it is n't bad but they block the chat anyway.... - \ _- ' Anyone has had the same troubles ?
How to resolve it ?
Thanks. Screen : http : //nsa13.casimages.com/img/2010/02/12/10021201582580101.png [ casimages.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey,

I'm experiencing troubles while trying to connect to the xmpp facebook account with Finch from my shell in Germany.
Facebook tells me I connect from an unusual location (usually I connect from France or Sweden), and that it isn't bad but they block the chat anyway.... -\_-' Anyone has had the same troubles ?
How to resolve it ?
Thanks. Screen : http://nsa13.casimages.com/img/2010/02/12/10021201582580101.png [casimages.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110066</id>
	<title>Bitlbee and other gateways</title>
	<author>qreeves</author>
	<datestamp>1265916600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm surprised this hasn't already come up, considering this is geek central I would have hoped more people were using Bitlbee. Facebook has added this annoying caveat to being able to login via jabber: You must be able to login via a web browser on the same host as the one you're trying to setup jabber with; this rules out public Bitlbee and other gateway services, as well as boxes that don't have X installed on them (Facebook requires you use an 'approved' browser, meaning lo (e)l[inks|ynx] for you).</p><p>

<tt>Logging in: Authenticated, requesting buddy list
Logging in: Message from unknown handle chat.facebook.com:
&gt;
You're signing in from a location we're not familiar with. That's no problem, but we do want to make sure no one is using your Facebook account without permission. Please take a few moments to review your recent Facebook activity. Start by logging in to facebook.com from any computer. (For your security, your Facebook account will be unavailable until you complete these steps.)
Couldn't log in: Account and resource used from a different location
Logging in: Signing off..</tt>

</p><p>Guess that means I'll continue on with FB chat disabled, like I need yet another IM that I won't use anyway. <a href="http://www.google.com/buzz" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Google Buzz</a> [google.com] looks more interesting anyway, as it is integrated with my email and other cloud data (privacy issues blah blah blah, I know) and their jabber services actually work wherever I want them to. Last I checked, my password identified me as me, why the extra unnecessary step? Because they want you to actually read their shovelware app spam to make money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised this has n't already come up , considering this is geek central I would have hoped more people were using Bitlbee .
Facebook has added this annoying caveat to being able to login via jabber : You must be able to login via a web browser on the same host as the one you 're trying to setup jabber with ; this rules out public Bitlbee and other gateway services , as well as boxes that do n't have X installed on them ( Facebook requires you use an 'approved ' browser , meaning lo ( e ) l [ inks | ynx ] for you ) .
Logging in : Authenticated , requesting buddy list Logging in : Message from unknown handle chat.facebook.com : &gt; You 're signing in from a location we 're not familiar with .
That 's no problem , but we do want to make sure no one is using your Facebook account without permission .
Please take a few moments to review your recent Facebook activity .
Start by logging in to facebook.com from any computer .
( For your security , your Facebook account will be unavailable until you complete these steps .
) Could n't log in : Account and resource used from a different location Logging in : Signing off. . Guess that means I 'll continue on with FB chat disabled , like I need yet another IM that I wo n't use anyway .
Google Buzz [ google.com ] looks more interesting anyway , as it is integrated with my email and other cloud data ( privacy issues blah blah blah , I know ) and their jabber services actually work wherever I want them to .
Last I checked , my password identified me as me , why the extra unnecessary step ?
Because they want you to actually read their shovelware app spam to make money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised this hasn't already come up, considering this is geek central I would have hoped more people were using Bitlbee.
Facebook has added this annoying caveat to being able to login via jabber: You must be able to login via a web browser on the same host as the one you're trying to setup jabber with; this rules out public Bitlbee and other gateway services, as well as boxes that don't have X installed on them (Facebook requires you use an 'approved' browser, meaning lo (e)l[inks|ynx] for you).
Logging in: Authenticated, requesting buddy list
Logging in: Message from unknown handle chat.facebook.com:
&gt;
You're signing in from a location we're not familiar with.
That's no problem, but we do want to make sure no one is using your Facebook account without permission.
Please take a few moments to review your recent Facebook activity.
Start by logging in to facebook.com from any computer.
(For your security, your Facebook account will be unavailable until you complete these steps.
)
Couldn't log in: Account and resource used from a different location
Logging in: Signing off..

Guess that means I'll continue on with FB chat disabled, like I need yet another IM that I won't use anyway.
Google Buzz [google.com] looks more interesting anyway, as it is integrated with my email and other cloud data (privacy issues blah blah blah, I know) and their jabber services actually work wherever I want them to.
Last I checked, my password identified me as me, why the extra unnecessary step?
Because they want you to actually read their shovelware app spam to make money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31112608</id>
	<title>Empathy - OTR = worthless</title>
	<author>otis wildflower</author>
	<datestamp>1265988480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does Empathy have OTR encryption yet?</p><p>If not, it is useless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does Empathy have OTR encryption yet ? If not , it is useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does Empathy have OTR encryption yet?If not, it is useless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31116030</id>
	<title>What is facebook actually?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266002040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook" title="guardian.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Read all about it.</a> [guardian.co.uk] It's nasty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read all about it .
[ guardian.co.uk ] It 's nasty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read all about it.
[guardian.co.uk] It's nasty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31115584</id>
	<title>Re:Steam Chat</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1266000420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hm. I'm down to Live Messenger, Steam, Xbox Live and Skype... I ditched AIM since gmail's web interface does that now, and I only had a couple friends on it anyway. I hardly ever use Steam, although my friends know to use it to get my attention if I'm playing a game. Xbox Live has a web interface, and I don't check it often enough to really care for a 24/7 app.</p><p>So that leaves Live Messenger, Steam and Skype running at any given time. Pain in the ass, but not unmanageable I guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hm .
I 'm down to Live Messenger , Steam , Xbox Live and Skype... I ditched AIM since gmail 's web interface does that now , and I only had a couple friends on it anyway .
I hardly ever use Steam , although my friends know to use it to get my attention if I 'm playing a game .
Xbox Live has a web interface , and I do n't check it often enough to really care for a 24/7 app.So that leaves Live Messenger , Steam and Skype running at any given time .
Pain in the ass , but not unmanageable I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hm.
I'm down to Live Messenger, Steam, Xbox Live and Skype... I ditched AIM since gmail's web interface does that now, and I only had a couple friends on it anyway.
I hardly ever use Steam, although my friends know to use it to get my attention if I'm playing a game.
Xbox Live has a web interface, and I don't check it often enough to really care for a 24/7 app.So that leaves Live Messenger, Steam and Skype running at any given time.
Pain in the ass, but not unmanageable I guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31116166</id>
	<title>Re:FUCKING BASTARDS!</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1266002520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yeah, they offer Jabber support. But if you want to use it, you have to have a user name.<br>But to have that, <strong>YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM YOUR PHONE NUMBER!</strong> </p></div><p>Bah, what's the big deal?  I give out my phone number all the time.  Here it is:</p><p>(234)567-8910</p><p>Apparently I've got an Ohio number...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , they offer Jabber support .
But if you want to use it , you have to have a user name.But to have that , YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM YOUR PHONE NUMBER !
Bah , what 's the big deal ?
I give out my phone number all the time .
Here it is : ( 234 ) 567-8910Apparently I 've got an Ohio number.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, they offer Jabber support.
But if you want to use it, you have to have a user name.But to have that, YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM YOUR PHONE NUMBER!
Bah, what's the big deal?
I give out my phone number all the time.
Here it is:(234)567-8910Apparently I've got an Ohio number...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31113734</id>
	<title>Re:plausible deniability at work</title>
	<author>TBone</author>
	<datestamp>1265993460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Pidgin plugin also had a tendency to knock your browser session offline while your Pidgin session was online - couldn't consistently run both of them.

This is much better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Pidgin plugin also had a tendency to knock your browser session offline while your Pidgin session was online - could n't consistently run both of them .
This is much better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Pidgin plugin also had a tendency to knock your browser session offline while your Pidgin session was online - couldn't consistently run both of them.
This is much better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109814</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31111908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31114528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31112844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31115584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31114520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31115582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31113734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31115164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31114622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31114274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31116166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31113820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31116816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31114686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31111036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31117074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31111550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31116052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31119830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31113526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31114512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31113516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31114904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31113516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31111028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_12_0158223_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31114032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_0158223.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31117074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31113820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_0158223.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110338
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_0158223.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_0158223.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31113526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_0158223.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31114622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31111550
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110088
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_0158223.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31114686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_0158223.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31112844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31114520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31111028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31116166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31114274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_0158223.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31112936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_0158223.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_0158223.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31111908
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_0158223.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31111760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_0158223.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31114528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31114032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_0158223.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31113382
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_0158223.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31115584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31110070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31119830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_0158223.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31116816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_0158223.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31113516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31114512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31114904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_0158223.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31111036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31115582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31116052
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_0158223.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31109814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31113734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31115164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_12_0158223.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_12_0158223.31111912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
