<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_17_2148229</id>
	<title>Outlook 2010 Bug Creates Monster Email Files</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1266402120000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Julie188 writes with this snippet from Network World <i>"Office 2010 is still in beta and a patch is already out. Microsoft is trying to fix a bug in the email program Outlook 2010 Beta that <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/57599">creates unusually large e-mail files</a> that take up too much space. The Outlook product team has offered a bug fix for both 32-bit and 64-bit systems that fixes the problem going forward, although previous emails will remain super-sized. This could be a problem for email programs that limit message sizes, such as Gmail or BlackBerry."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Julie188 writes with this snippet from Network World " Office 2010 is still in beta and a patch is already out .
Microsoft is trying to fix a bug in the email program Outlook 2010 Beta that creates unusually large e-mail files that take up too much space .
The Outlook product team has offered a bug fix for both 32-bit and 64-bit systems that fixes the problem going forward , although previous emails will remain super-sized .
This could be a problem for email programs that limit message sizes , such as Gmail or BlackBerry .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Julie188 writes with this snippet from Network World "Office 2010 is still in beta and a patch is already out.
Microsoft is trying to fix a bug in the email program Outlook 2010 Beta that creates unusually large e-mail files that take up too much space.
The Outlook product team has offered a bug fix for both 32-bit and 64-bit systems that fixes the problem going forward, although previous emails will remain super-sized.
This could be a problem for email programs that limit message sizes, such as Gmail or BlackBerry.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177282</id>
	<title>Re:A bug in a beta?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265023980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh my heavens!  Microsoft fucking up email?  What is the world coming to?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh my heavens !
Microsoft fucking up email ?
What is the world coming to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh my heavens!
Microsoft fucking up email?
What is the world coming to?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179274</id>
	<title>Re:Outlook 64bit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Uninstalling it and moving back to Office 2007 32bit fixed all my problems.</p></div></blockquote><p>This, my friends, is why some people shouldn't be permitted to post on Slashdot: They're idiots.<br> <br>Mr\_Plattz is an idiot because he installed a beta version of a program on a production system, rather than a test system or a virtual machine.<br> <br>It is my sincerest hope that you do not work in an MIS department, because you're fucking clueless... and, I pity the MIS department that has to support you, for the same reason.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uninstalling it and moving back to Office 2007 32bit fixed all my problems.This , my friends , is why some people should n't be permitted to post on Slashdot : They 're idiots .
Mr \ _Plattz is an idiot because he installed a beta version of a program on a production system , rather than a test system or a virtual machine .
It is my sincerest hope that you do not work in an MIS department , because you 're fucking clueless... and , I pity the MIS department that has to support you , for the same reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uninstalling it and moving back to Office 2007 32bit fixed all my problems.This, my friends, is why some people shouldn't be permitted to post on Slashdot: They're idiots.
Mr\_Plattz is an idiot because he installed a beta version of a program on a production system, rather than a test system or a virtual machine.
It is my sincerest hope that you do not work in an MIS department, because you're fucking clueless... and, I pity the MIS department that has to support you, for the same reason.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31182082</id>
	<title>Re:That's nothing compared to bugs in Outlook 2007</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1266491520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps, but if like me you've moved to a company that uses Lotus Notes, you'll be pining for Outlook again.</p><p>I used Outlook for 7 years straight, and now Notes for 2 years, I'd do anything to get Outlook back!</p><p>For all it's quirks, you don't realise how good Outlook is until you have to try the likes of Notes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps , but if like me you 've moved to a company that uses Lotus Notes , you 'll be pining for Outlook again.I used Outlook for 7 years straight , and now Notes for 2 years , I 'd do anything to get Outlook back ! For all it 's quirks , you do n't realise how good Outlook is until you have to try the likes of Notes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps, but if like me you've moved to a company that uses Lotus Notes, you'll be pining for Outlook again.I used Outlook for 7 years straight, and now Notes for 2 years, I'd do anything to get Outlook back!For all it's quirks, you don't realise how good Outlook is until you have to try the likes of Notes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178200</id>
	<title>Slow News Day</title>
	<author>gsgriffin</author>
	<datestamp>1265027880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can't imagine why this is on here and why any of us are wasting our time replying.  Dang!  Just lost 30 seconds of my life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't imagine why this is on here and why any of us are wasting our time replying .
Dang ! Just lost 30 seconds of my life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't imagine why this is on here and why any of us are wasting our time replying.
Dang!  Just lost 30 seconds of my life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179908</id>
	<title>Re:A bug in a beta?</title>
	<author>Wayne247</author>
	<datestamp>1265041440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not all. To this day, we still occasionally receive an email consisting of nothing more than an attachment "winmail.dat"</p><p>i eventually gave up on trying to tell mail administrators to set outlook clients properly or to set Exchange rules for outbound formating. I've installed "Lookout" plugin on all users' Thunderbirds.</p><p>It's really as if Microsoft deliberately tried to break email interoperability so they can attempt to monopolize it. Hmm.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not all .
To this day , we still occasionally receive an email consisting of nothing more than an attachment " winmail.dat " i eventually gave up on trying to tell mail administrators to set outlook clients properly or to set Exchange rules for outbound formating .
I 've installed " Lookout " plugin on all users ' Thunderbirds.It 's really as if Microsoft deliberately tried to break email interoperability so they can attempt to monopolize it .
Hmm.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not all.
To this day, we still occasionally receive an email consisting of nothing more than an attachment "winmail.dat"i eventually gave up on trying to tell mail administrators to set outlook clients properly or to set Exchange rules for outbound formating.
I've installed "Lookout" plugin on all users' Thunderbirds.It's really as if Microsoft deliberately tried to break email interoperability so they can attempt to monopolize it.
Hmm.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177304</id>
	<title>Email is largely useless anyway</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I'm not talking about UCE.</p><p>Simple abuse of email as a broadcast medium means that I receive a mean of around 100 emails per day (in a corporate environment) from dozens of different people and organisations. Sure, I have filters, dozens of them and constantly adding more, but, you know, it's really just not worth it for the numbers of useful and relevant emails which I do receive. Particularly when outlook is so dire at handling large numbers of mails.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I 'm not talking about UCE.Simple abuse of email as a broadcast medium means that I receive a mean of around 100 emails per day ( in a corporate environment ) from dozens of different people and organisations .
Sure , I have filters , dozens of them and constantly adding more , but , you know , it 's really just not worth it for the numbers of useful and relevant emails which I do receive .
Particularly when outlook is so dire at handling large numbers of mails .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I'm not talking about UCE.Simple abuse of email as a broadcast medium means that I receive a mean of around 100 emails per day (in a corporate environment) from dozens of different people and organisations.
Sure, I have filters, dozens of them and constantly adding more, but, you know, it's really just not worth it for the numbers of useful and relevant emails which I do receive.
Particularly when outlook is so dire at handling large numbers of mails.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179030</id>
	<title>Re:That's nothing compared to bugs in Outlook 2007</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265034000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS employs the &ldquo;upside-down pyramid&rdquo; model of software lifecycle design.</p><p>It works like this:<br><tt>app = code(design(BASIC\_ARCHITECTURE)) # original design and intentions are instantly forgotten<br>bf = marketing.getBlingFactory();<br>while (sales.sell(app)) {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; f = bf.getNewFeature()<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; management.fuckUp(f)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; sales.addLockIn(f)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; hammerIntoSomethingPhysicallyPossible(f,IGNORE\_MANAGEMENT)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; try {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; code(f)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; } catch (ManagementExpectsItToBeFinishedAlreadyError) {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; tieTogheterLooseStrings(f,[SPAGHETTI\_STYLE,IGNORE\_BUG\_HAZARDS,MAKE\_HASTE])<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; }<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; try {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; app.add(f)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; } catch (DoesntFitArchitectureAnymoreError) {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; p = code(new Patchwork(NASTY))<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; p.add(f)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; app.add(p,USE\_BRUTE\_FORCE)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; }<br>}</tt></p><p>So instead of doing a proper redesign and rewrite, where everything would fit nicely, they only cram more onto a tiny basis.<br>Windows ME is the perfect example: A 32-bit extension of a 16-bit graphical shell of an 8-bit operating system coded for a 4-bit processor by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS employs the    upside-down pyramid    model of software lifecycle design.It works like this : app = code ( design ( BASIC \ _ARCHITECTURE ) ) # original design and intentions are instantly forgottenbf = marketing.getBlingFactory ( ) ; while ( sales.sell ( app ) ) {     f = bf.getNewFeature ( )     management.fuckUp ( f )     sales.addLockIn ( f )     hammerIntoSomethingPhysicallyPossible ( f,IGNORE \ _MANAGEMENT )     try {         code ( f )     } catch ( ManagementExpectsItToBeFinishedAlreadyError ) {         tieTogheterLooseStrings ( f , [ SPAGHETTI \ _STYLE,IGNORE \ _BUG \ _HAZARDS,MAKE \ _HASTE ] )     }     try {         app.add ( f )     } catch ( DoesntFitArchitectureAnymoreError ) {         p = code ( new Patchwork ( NASTY ) )         p.add ( f )         app.add ( p,USE \ _BRUTE \ _FORCE )     } } So instead of doing a proper redesign and rewrite , where everything would fit nicely , they only cram more onto a tiny basis.Windows ME is the perfect example : A 32-bit extension of a 16-bit graphical shell of an 8-bit operating system coded for a 4-bit processor by a two-bit company that ca n't stand one bit of competition .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS employs the “upside-down pyramid” model of software lifecycle design.It works like this:app = code(design(BASIC\_ARCHITECTURE)) # original design and intentions are instantly forgottenbf = marketing.getBlingFactory();while (sales.sell(app)) {
    f = bf.getNewFeature()
    management.fuckUp(f)
    sales.addLockIn(f)
    hammerIntoSomethingPhysicallyPossible(f,IGNORE\_MANAGEMENT)
    try {
        code(f)
    } catch (ManagementExpectsItToBeFinishedAlreadyError) {
        tieTogheterLooseStrings(f,[SPAGHETTI\_STYLE,IGNORE\_BUG\_HAZARDS,MAKE\_HASTE])
    }
    try {
        app.add(f)
    } catch (DoesntFitArchitectureAnymoreError) {
        p = code(new Patchwork(NASTY))
        p.add(f)
        app.add(p,USE\_BRUTE\_FORCE)
    }}So instead of doing a proper redesign and rewrite, where everything would fit nicely, they only cram more onto a tiny basis.Windows ME is the perfect example: A 32-bit extension of a 16-bit graphical shell of an 8-bit operating system coded for a 4-bit processor by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178380</id>
	<title>Re:Stop the presses!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265028900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup, "beta" would have been in the headline by any responsible editor.</p><p>That said, yeah it's news --<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers test beta apps, and creating enormous files is a worthy heads-up. But more importantly we've a lot of devs here who probably aren't testing the beta, and now have an interesting bug to go look at.</p><p>If anyone, including editors, take it as an opportunity to hetfield-growl "MS...bad!", well that's just a side-embarrassment for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.. The story has technical interest of its own to stand by.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , " beta " would have been in the headline by any responsible editor.That said , yeah it 's news -- /.ers test beta apps , and creating enormous files is a worthy heads-up .
But more importantly we 've a lot of devs here who probably are n't testing the beta , and now have an interesting bug to go look at.If anyone , including editors , take it as an opportunity to hetfield-growl " MS...bad !
" , well that 's just a side-embarrassment for /.. The story has technical interest of its own to stand by .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, "beta" would have been in the headline by any responsible editor.That said, yeah it's news -- /.ers test beta apps, and creating enormous files is a worthy heads-up.
But more importantly we've a lot of devs here who probably aren't testing the beta, and now have an interesting bug to go look at.If anyone, including editors, take it as an opportunity to hetfield-growl "MS...bad!
", well that's just a side-embarrassment for /.. The story has technical interest of its own to stand by.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177196</id>
	<title>Monster email files?</title>
	<author>richdun</author>
	<datestamp>1265023620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what if they're just covered in shiny material and cost 10x more than regular email files? The guy in the blue shirt told me they were worth it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what if they 're just covered in shiny material and cost 10x more than regular email files ?
The guy in the blue shirt told me they were worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what if they're just covered in shiny material and cost 10x more than regular email files?
The guy in the blue shirt told me they were worth it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31180510</id>
	<title>Re:A bug in a beta?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265047860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I *HATE* inline comments, stuff like resolution in your viewer can seriously fuck up the way the mail is displayed causing confusion about what belongs where. Also when you do inline comments people getting into the conversation later on will have a hard time figuring out what belongs where and who said what, having replies going on top means it's easy to see who wrote what earlier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I * HATE * inline comments , stuff like resolution in your viewer can seriously fuck up the way the mail is displayed causing confusion about what belongs where .
Also when you do inline comments people getting into the conversation later on will have a hard time figuring out what belongs where and who said what , having replies going on top means it 's easy to see who wrote what earlier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I *HATE* inline comments, stuff like resolution in your viewer can seriously fuck up the way the mail is displayed causing confusion about what belongs where.
Also when you do inline comments people getting into the conversation later on will have a hard time figuring out what belongs where and who said what, having replies going on top means it's easy to see who wrote what earlier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31181794</id>
	<title>Re:A bug in a beta?</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1266488520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does "going forward" mean in the sentence:</p><p>"The Outlook product team has offered a bug fix for both 32-bit and 64-bit systems that fixes the problem going forward"</p><p>Perhaps it's me, but I don't understand what you'd lose by simply omitting the words.  This seems to be the case generally.  Is there some subtle, extra piece of information the use of those two words provides?  (It reminds me of watching the police on TV trying to explain how they've not managed to catch some crook yet with the words "not at this particular moment in time" rather than "no".)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does " going forward " mean in the sentence : " The Outlook product team has offered a bug fix for both 32-bit and 64-bit systems that fixes the problem going forward " Perhaps it 's me , but I do n't understand what you 'd lose by simply omitting the words .
This seems to be the case generally .
Is there some subtle , extra piece of information the use of those two words provides ?
( It reminds me of watching the police on TV trying to explain how they 've not managed to catch some crook yet with the words " not at this particular moment in time " rather than " no " .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does "going forward" mean in the sentence:"The Outlook product team has offered a bug fix for both 32-bit and 64-bit systems that fixes the problem going forward"Perhaps it's me, but I don't understand what you'd lose by simply omitting the words.
This seems to be the case generally.
Is there some subtle, extra piece of information the use of those two words provides?
(It reminds me of watching the police on TV trying to explain how they've not managed to catch some crook yet with the words "not at this particular moment in time" rather than "no".
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31183130</id>
	<title>Re:A bug in a beta?</title>
	<author>vegiVamp</author>
	<datestamp>1266502440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First post, *and* common sense ? I wish I had a +1 WhatAreYouDoingHere mod.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First post , * and * common sense ?
I wish I had a + 1 WhatAreYouDoingHere mod .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First post, *and* common sense ?
I wish I had a +1 WhatAreYouDoingHere mod.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177172</id>
	<title>Stop the presses!!!</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1265023440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A bug in beta? From an MS product?  Thanks slashdot!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A bug in beta ?
From an MS product ?
Thanks slashdot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bug in beta?
From an MS product?
Thanks slashdot!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179574</id>
	<title>Re:That's nothing compared to bugs in Outlook 2007</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1265038260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Searching a subfolder inside your inbox still doesn't work (it will find items but you can't open them), It has the must unusual ideas about drag and drop attachments (sometimes it just attaches a GIF icon, but not the document itself), And my favorite, it will randomly exit with an error (an error has occured, would you like to send a report?), when right clicking selected text to change the typeface...</i>
</p><p>Can't say I've seen any of these problems, ever.  Do you have any custom extensions or plugins for your Outlook install ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Searching a subfolder inside your inbox still does n't work ( it will find items but you ca n't open them ) , It has the must unusual ideas about drag and drop attachments ( sometimes it just attaches a GIF icon , but not the document itself ) , And my favorite , it will randomly exit with an error ( an error has occured , would you like to send a report ?
) , when right clicking selected text to change the typeface.. . Ca n't say I 've seen any of these problems , ever .
Do you have any custom extensions or plugins for your Outlook install ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Searching a subfolder inside your inbox still doesn't work (it will find items but you can't open them), It has the must unusual ideas about drag and drop attachments (sometimes it just attaches a GIF icon, but not the document itself), And my favorite, it will randomly exit with an error (an error has occured, would you like to send a report?
), when right clicking selected text to change the typeface...
Can't say I've seen any of these problems, ever.
Do you have any custom extensions or plugins for your Outlook install ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31180276</id>
	<title>Re:A bug in a beta?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265044920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you read your whole quote? It said MS introduced threading in previous versions. So what do you mean "finally" discovered threading?</p><p>dom</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you read your whole quote ?
It said MS introduced threading in previous versions .
So what do you mean " finally " discovered threading ? dom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you read your whole quote?
It said MS introduced threading in previous versions.
So what do you mean "finally" discovered threading?dom
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179192</id>
	<title>Slow Microsoft-Bashing Day?</title>
	<author>DavidD\_CA</author>
	<datestamp>1265035440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only did Microsoft <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/outlook/archive/2010/01/22/issue-with-message-sizes-in-outlook-2010-beta.aspx" title="msdn.com">announce this on their Outlook 2010 blog</a> [msdn.com] back on Jan 22, but they <a href="http://blogs.technet.com/office2010/archive/2010/02/11/fix-for-message-size-issue-in-outlook-2010-beta.aspx" title="technet.com">announced the patch for it</a> [technet.com] on Feb 11.</p><p>And it's beta software.  We kinda expect it to make mistakes.  Unlike some companies that keep their products in beta for a decade.</p><p>I've been using Office 2010 for a few months now and absolutely love it.  It's not very different from 2007.  Just refined, like Windows 7 is to Vista.  It has a few new features in each application that users will enjoy, especially in Sharepoint environments.</p><p>One very cool feature in Outlook is the "People Pane" which appears optionally next to the message you're reading.  Expand it and it will show you all of your prior appointments, emails, IMs, attachments, and more that are connected to that person.  So when Fred sends you an email and says "what did you think about that other email I sent you?" it's a piece of cake to find it.</p><p>But oh noes!  A beta has a bug!  There must be nothing else to bash Microsoft for today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only did Microsoft announce this on their Outlook 2010 blog [ msdn.com ] back on Jan 22 , but they announced the patch for it [ technet.com ] on Feb 11.And it 's beta software .
We kinda expect it to make mistakes .
Unlike some companies that keep their products in beta for a decade.I 've been using Office 2010 for a few months now and absolutely love it .
It 's not very different from 2007 .
Just refined , like Windows 7 is to Vista .
It has a few new features in each application that users will enjoy , especially in Sharepoint environments.One very cool feature in Outlook is the " People Pane " which appears optionally next to the message you 're reading .
Expand it and it will show you all of your prior appointments , emails , IMs , attachments , and more that are connected to that person .
So when Fred sends you an email and says " what did you think about that other email I sent you ?
" it 's a piece of cake to find it.But oh noes !
A beta has a bug !
There must be nothing else to bash Microsoft for today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only did Microsoft announce this on their Outlook 2010 blog [msdn.com] back on Jan 22, but they announced the patch for it [technet.com] on Feb 11.And it's beta software.
We kinda expect it to make mistakes.
Unlike some companies that keep their products in beta for a decade.I've been using Office 2010 for a few months now and absolutely love it.
It's not very different from 2007.
Just refined, like Windows 7 is to Vista.
It has a few new features in each application that users will enjoy, especially in Sharepoint environments.One very cool feature in Outlook is the "People Pane" which appears optionally next to the message you're reading.
Expand it and it will show you all of your prior appointments, emails, IMs, attachments, and more that are connected to that person.
So when Fred sends you an email and says "what did you think about that other email I sent you?
" it's a piece of cake to find it.But oh noes!
A beta has a bug!
There must be nothing else to bash Microsoft for today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179744</id>
	<title>Rendering html format</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if LookOut 2010 will render html-formatted emails using something besides Word as the engine. LookOut 2007 is awful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if LookOut 2010 will render html-formatted emails using something besides Word as the engine .
LookOut 2007 is awful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if LookOut 2010 will render html-formatted emails using something besides Word as the engine.
LookOut 2007 is awful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178240</id>
	<title>Re:How did this reach beta?</title>
	<author>matrim99</author>
	<datestamp>1265028180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We don't know when this defect was introduced into the code.  It could have been a recently introduced defect or one that has been around for awhile; we have no way of knowing.</p><p>Bottom line is this is a BETA release.  Sometimes the simplest defect can cause very nasty looking symptoms and look like a giant problem even though it has a very simple solution.  And the most harmless looking defect can really be the tip of the iceberg, a huge design defect (or whatever) that is extremely difficult to resolve.  It is pretty pointless to speculate about the state of a product just by looking at defects it has at any point on the pre-release stages of the product's lifecycle, because we just don't have enough information to make a meaningful conclusion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't know when this defect was introduced into the code .
It could have been a recently introduced defect or one that has been around for awhile ; we have no way of knowing.Bottom line is this is a BETA release .
Sometimes the simplest defect can cause very nasty looking symptoms and look like a giant problem even though it has a very simple solution .
And the most harmless looking defect can really be the tip of the iceberg , a huge design defect ( or whatever ) that is extremely difficult to resolve .
It is pretty pointless to speculate about the state of a product just by looking at defects it has at any point on the pre-release stages of the product 's lifecycle , because we just do n't have enough information to make a meaningful conclusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't know when this defect was introduced into the code.
It could have been a recently introduced defect or one that has been around for awhile; we have no way of knowing.Bottom line is this is a BETA release.
Sometimes the simplest defect can cause very nasty looking symptoms and look like a giant problem even though it has a very simple solution.
And the most harmless looking defect can really be the tip of the iceberg, a huge design defect (or whatever) that is extremely difficult to resolve.
It is pretty pointless to speculate about the state of a product just by looking at defects it has at any point on the pre-release stages of the product's lifecycle, because we just don't have enough information to make a meaningful conclusion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177448</id>
	<title>Size Limits on Email</title>
	<author>sanjacguy</author>
	<datestamp>1265024580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>More than just free email limits size.  Size limits are one of the variables you can set in Exchange 2003, and I believe the default maximum email size is 5MB.  Given that most private organizations do not have unlimited email space, setting a limit on size is just as important as monitoring the size of the Information Store.

(Fair warning, I may be wrong about the specific default max email size for exchange 2k3.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>More than just free email limits size .
Size limits are one of the variables you can set in Exchange 2003 , and I believe the default maximum email size is 5MB .
Given that most private organizations do not have unlimited email space , setting a limit on size is just as important as monitoring the size of the Information Store .
( Fair warning , I may be wrong about the specific default max email size for exchange 2k3 .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More than just free email limits size.
Size limits are one of the variables you can set in Exchange 2003, and I believe the default maximum email size is 5MB.
Given that most private organizations do not have unlimited email space, setting a limit on size is just as important as monitoring the size of the Information Store.
(Fair warning, I may be wrong about the specific default max email size for exchange 2k3.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177478</id>
	<title>Outlook 64bit</title>
	<author>Mr\_Plattz</author>
	<datestamp>1265024640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While we're talking about it, I thought I'd use this space to inform others about how my Outlook 2010 beta is going on Windows 7 64bit.  Back end is Exchange 2010 RTM.</p><ul>
<li>Since installing it, IE -&gt; Office 'Sharepoint Services Support'" literally doesn't work.   Obviously supporting being able to click a Document in Sharepoint and have it Open or Edit inside it's Office counterpart is too hard.   You can't even manually open a document from 'Open' and save it to Sharepoint.</li>
<li>Composing an Email Message will take 100\% CPU until you send it.  I can confirm this on other SOE's with AMD to Intel CPU's.  Lucky I have a Core2Duo so my workstation is usable.   My team mate who is also trying it is unlucky enough to only have a single CPU so he literally can't leave an email half composed.  Well he can, but he can't do anything else.</li>
<li>Returning from PC from Standby leaves the Inbox empty,  It reconnects, but just doesnt show any email.  You need to click another folder than another one.</li>
<li>The Send-A-Smile 'feature' is stupid.  Yes I want to give some feedback (for example, the above 3 points) but I'm NOT giving you a screenshot of my Corporate SOE Desktop while doing so.</li>
<li>It's slow, really slow.</li>
<li>Composing an Email in HTML default with a signature and then trying to change it to Plain-Text will cause all your cause in the Email to be deleted.</li>
</ul><p>Uninstalling it and moving back to Office 2007 32bit fixed all my problems.  Some of the new features are pretty cool though, and I'm looking forward to having a true 64bit Office SOE Workstation</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While we 're talking about it , I thought I 'd use this space to inform others about how my Outlook 2010 beta is going on Windows 7 64bit .
Back end is Exchange 2010 RTM .
Since installing it , IE - &gt; Office 'Sharepoint Services Support ' " literally does n't work .
Obviously supporting being able to click a Document in Sharepoint and have it Open or Edit inside it 's Office counterpart is too hard .
You ca n't even manually open a document from 'Open ' and save it to Sharepoint .
Composing an Email Message will take 100 \ % CPU until you send it .
I can confirm this on other SOE 's with AMD to Intel CPU 's .
Lucky I have a Core2Duo so my workstation is usable .
My team mate who is also trying it is unlucky enough to only have a single CPU so he literally ca n't leave an email half composed .
Well he can , but he ca n't do anything else .
Returning from PC from Standby leaves the Inbox empty , It reconnects , but just doesnt show any email .
You need to click another folder than another one .
The Send-A-Smile 'feature ' is stupid .
Yes I want to give some feedback ( for example , the above 3 points ) but I 'm NOT giving you a screenshot of my Corporate SOE Desktop while doing so .
It 's slow , really slow .
Composing an Email in HTML default with a signature and then trying to change it to Plain-Text will cause all your cause in the Email to be deleted .
Uninstalling it and moving back to Office 2007 32bit fixed all my problems .
Some of the new features are pretty cool though , and I 'm looking forward to having a true 64bit Office SOE Workstation</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While we're talking about it, I thought I'd use this space to inform others about how my Outlook 2010 beta is going on Windows 7 64bit.
Back end is Exchange 2010 RTM.
Since installing it, IE -&gt; Office 'Sharepoint Services Support'" literally doesn't work.
Obviously supporting being able to click a Document in Sharepoint and have it Open or Edit inside it's Office counterpart is too hard.
You can't even manually open a document from 'Open' and save it to Sharepoint.
Composing an Email Message will take 100\% CPU until you send it.
I can confirm this on other SOE's with AMD to Intel CPU's.
Lucky I have a Core2Duo so my workstation is usable.
My team mate who is also trying it is unlucky enough to only have a single CPU so he literally can't leave an email half composed.
Well he can, but he can't do anything else.
Returning from PC from Standby leaves the Inbox empty,  It reconnects, but just doesnt show any email.
You need to click another folder than another one.
The Send-A-Smile 'feature' is stupid.
Yes I want to give some feedback (for example, the above 3 points) but I'm NOT giving you a screenshot of my Corporate SOE Desktop while doing so.
It's slow, really slow.
Composing an Email in HTML default with a signature and then trying to change it to Plain-Text will cause all your cause in the Email to be deleted.
Uninstalling it and moving back to Office 2007 32bit fixed all my problems.
Some of the new features are pretty cool though, and I'm looking forward to having a true 64bit Office SOE Workstation</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31180032</id>
	<title>I doubt many sysadmins would have noticed this...</title>
	<author>thatkid\_2002</author>
	<datestamp>1265042580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I probably wouldn't have noticed this as the number of users I see who attempt to email files between 50MB and 4.2GB is amazing! They actually complain that it is taking forever to send their email or that their email has stopped working completely because they are receiving a massive file which clogs their receive queue!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I probably would n't have noticed this as the number of users I see who attempt to email files between 50MB and 4.2GB is amazing !
They actually complain that it is taking forever to send their email or that their email has stopped working completely because they are receiving a massive file which clogs their receive queue !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I probably wouldn't have noticed this as the number of users I see who attempt to email files between 50MB and 4.2GB is amazing!
They actually complain that it is taking forever to send their email or that their email has stopped working completely because they are receiving a massive file which clogs their receive queue!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31191790</id>
	<title>Re:A bug in a beta?</title>
	<author>jgrahn</author>
	<datestamp>1266490560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I *HATE* inline comments, stuff like resolution in your viewer can seriously fuck up the way the mail is displayed causing confusion about what belongs where.</p></div></blockquote><p>Do you hate inline comments done badly by Outlook, or also inline comments done right,
like they used to be before HTML-formatted mail? The ones Outlook goes out of its way to break?
I'm not particularly fond of "see my comments below in red", "see my comments below in blue",<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... either.</p><blockquote><div><p>Also when you do inline comments people getting into the conversation later on will have a hard time figuring out what belongs where and who said what, having replies going on top means it's easy to see who wrote what earlier.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I'm often Cc:ed late in top-posted conversations, and they are not much better.
Scrolling down to the bottom. No, they're talking about something else there.
Why is this mail 235K?  Oh, everyone's mail disclaimer and BMP company logo has been repeated
over and over again.  Did anyone trim the irrelevant crap? -- No.  Did they change the subject line
when the subject changed? -- No.
</p><p>
The truth is, I guess, that it takes carefulness and taste from the authors to keep
a discussion readable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I * HATE * inline comments , stuff like resolution in your viewer can seriously fuck up the way the mail is displayed causing confusion about what belongs where.Do you hate inline comments done badly by Outlook , or also inline comments done right , like they used to be before HTML-formatted mail ?
The ones Outlook goes out of its way to break ?
I 'm not particularly fond of " see my comments below in red " , " see my comments below in blue " , ... either.Also when you do inline comments people getting into the conversation later on will have a hard time figuring out what belongs where and who said what , having replies going on top means it 's easy to see who wrote what earlier .
I 'm often Cc : ed late in top-posted conversations , and they are not much better .
Scrolling down to the bottom .
No , they 're talking about something else there .
Why is this mail 235K ?
Oh , everyone 's mail disclaimer and BMP company logo has been repeated over and over again .
Did anyone trim the irrelevant crap ?
-- No .
Did they change the subject line when the subject changed ?
-- No .
The truth is , I guess , that it takes carefulness and taste from the authors to keep a discussion readable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I *HATE* inline comments, stuff like resolution in your viewer can seriously fuck up the way the mail is displayed causing confusion about what belongs where.Do you hate inline comments done badly by Outlook, or also inline comments done right,
like they used to be before HTML-formatted mail?
The ones Outlook goes out of its way to break?
I'm not particularly fond of "see my comments below in red", "see my comments below in blue", ... either.Also when you do inline comments people getting into the conversation later on will have a hard time figuring out what belongs where and who said what, having replies going on top means it's easy to see who wrote what earlier.
I'm often Cc:ed late in top-posted conversations, and they are not much better.
Scrolling down to the bottom.
No, they're talking about something else there.
Why is this mail 235K?
Oh, everyone's mail disclaimer and BMP company logo has been repeated
over and over again.
Did anyone trim the irrelevant crap?
-- No.
Did they change the subject line
when the subject changed?
-- No.
The truth is, I guess, that it takes carefulness and taste from the authors to keep
a discussion readable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31180510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178802</id>
	<title>Re:A bug in a beta?</title>
	<author>Lord\_of\_the\_nerf</author>
	<datestamp>1265032020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you missed that those bugs create MONSTERS. </p><p>

Arm yourselves people! This is the warning that Tokyo never got!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you missed that those bugs create MONSTERS .
Arm yourselves people !
This is the warning that Tokyo never got !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you missed that those bugs create MONSTERS.
Arm yourselves people!
This is the warning that Tokyo never got!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179644</id>
	<title>2010 version?</title>
	<author>brendan.hill</author>
	<datestamp>1265039100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure this bug has been there since Outlook 2003.</p><p>*waits for 4GB PST file to back up over the network*</p><p>.<br>.</p><p>(*places spare change into piggy bank to save up for MS Exchange*)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure this bug has been there since Outlook 2003 .
* waits for 4GB PST file to back up over the network * .. ( * places spare change into piggy bank to save up for MS Exchange * )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure this bug has been there since Outlook 2003.
*waits for 4GB PST file to back up over the network*..(*places spare change into piggy bank to save up for MS Exchange*)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31182208</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward replies to office 2010 beta</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266492960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will create an account but . . .  although it is a beta doesn't that mean its nearly ready for prime time?  I've given up on Outlook 2010 because it eats opened emails.  I always had a problem with Word but just as I get it running the way I want it to MS comes out with another version.  2010 beta is a challenge; like things that go bump in the night.  I'm trying OpenOffice (not a beta) to see if there is a word processing program out there that meets my needs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will create an account but .
. .
although it is a beta does n't that mean its nearly ready for prime time ?
I 've given up on Outlook 2010 because it eats opened emails .
I always had a problem with Word but just as I get it running the way I want it to MS comes out with another version .
2010 beta is a challenge ; like things that go bump in the night .
I 'm trying OpenOffice ( not a beta ) to see if there is a word processing program out there that meets my needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will create an account but .
. .
although it is a beta doesn't that mean its nearly ready for prime time?
I've given up on Outlook 2010 because it eats opened emails.
I always had a problem with Word but just as I get it running the way I want it to MS comes out with another version.
2010 beta is a challenge; like things that go bump in the night.
I'm trying OpenOffice (not a beta) to see if there is a word processing program out there that meets my needs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31181872</id>
	<title>Worrying feature</title>
	<author>johnw</author>
	<datestamp>1266489240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>To get rid of those older monster e-mails, the Outlook team suggests running Conversation Cleanup, a new feature of Outlook 2010, which moves all the older, redundant messages in the user's e-mail conversations to the Deleted Items folder. Cleanup keeps the most recent message around, Microsoft says, ensuring users have all the content in the conversation while allowing them to delete the redundant messages.</p></div><p>I hope this "feature" has the intelligence to scan all the earlier messages in the thread to make sure that all the people in the conversation are clueless and have blindly quoted the entire conversation in each of their posts.</p><p>I wonder how it handles branches in the conversation?  Does it keep the final message in each branch?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To get rid of those older monster e-mails , the Outlook team suggests running Conversation Cleanup , a new feature of Outlook 2010 , which moves all the older , redundant messages in the user 's e-mail conversations to the Deleted Items folder .
Cleanup keeps the most recent message around , Microsoft says , ensuring users have all the content in the conversation while allowing them to delete the redundant messages.I hope this " feature " has the intelligence to scan all the earlier messages in the thread to make sure that all the people in the conversation are clueless and have blindly quoted the entire conversation in each of their posts.I wonder how it handles branches in the conversation ?
Does it keep the final message in each branch ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To get rid of those older monster e-mails, the Outlook team suggests running Conversation Cleanup, a new feature of Outlook 2010, which moves all the older, redundant messages in the user's e-mail conversations to the Deleted Items folder.
Cleanup keeps the most recent message around, Microsoft says, ensuring users have all the content in the conversation while allowing them to delete the redundant messages.I hope this "feature" has the intelligence to scan all the earlier messages in the thread to make sure that all the people in the conversation are clueless and have blindly quoted the entire conversation in each of their posts.I wonder how it handles branches in the conversation?
Does it keep the final message in each branch?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177422</id>
	<title>Re:Monster email files?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, this is Microsoft we're talking about, not Apple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , this is Microsoft we 're talking about , not Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, this is Microsoft we're talking about, not Apple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179400</id>
	<title>re: limiting the size of emails</title>
	<author>MyBrotherSteve</author>
	<datestamp>1265037060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"This could be a problem for email programs that limit message sizes..."
It's not necessarily a program that limits the size of an email message, it's an internet service or email provider that limits the message size to or from it's servers. For example, Gmail (remember, it's Google as a company that sets the limit on the message size, not the Gmail app itself) has a 25MB limit on message size, AT&amp;T and Comcast are still 10MB, I believe, and companies like Earthlink (that are still in the ISP dark ages) are 5MB. Also, I believe Earthstink still only gives people a 100MB inbox, while most other ISPs are 1or 2GB or more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" This could be a problem for email programs that limit message sizes... " It 's not necessarily a program that limits the size of an email message , it 's an internet service or email provider that limits the message size to or from it 's servers .
For example , Gmail ( remember , it 's Google as a company that sets the limit on the message size , not the Gmail app itself ) has a 25MB limit on message size , AT&amp;T and Comcast are still 10MB , I believe , and companies like Earthlink ( that are still in the ISP dark ages ) are 5MB .
Also , I believe Earthstink still only gives people a 100MB inbox , while most other ISPs are 1or 2GB or more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This could be a problem for email programs that limit message sizes..."
It's not necessarily a program that limits the size of an email message, it's an internet service or email provider that limits the message size to or from it's servers.
For example, Gmail (remember, it's Google as a company that sets the limit on the message size, not the Gmail app itself) has a 25MB limit on message size, AT&amp;T and Comcast are still 10MB, I believe, and companies like Earthlink (that are still in the ISP dark ages) are 5MB.
Also, I believe Earthstink still only gives people a 100MB inbox, while most other ISPs are 1or 2GB or more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178950</id>
	<title>Easter Eggs!  Eggs full of bugs!</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1265033340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It has to be an Easter Egg.  But what is it?  I, for one, would be quite happy to discover during the course of examining my work email files that there was a new way do something constructive with my day, perhaps a World of Warcraft ICC rep run.  And as far as bugs go, I could always use a few more stacks of Nerubian Chitin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has to be an Easter Egg .
But what is it ?
I , for one , would be quite happy to discover during the course of examining my work email files that there was a new way do something constructive with my day , perhaps a World of Warcraft ICC rep run .
And as far as bugs go , I could always use a few more stacks of Nerubian Chitin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has to be an Easter Egg.
But what is it?
I, for one, would be quite happy to discover during the course of examining my work email files that there was a new way do something constructive with my day, perhaps a World of Warcraft ICC rep run.
And as far as bugs go, I could always use a few more stacks of Nerubian Chitin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178824</id>
	<title>Bug? Or feature?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1265032140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the email program Outlook 2010 Beta that creates unusually large e-mail files that take up too much space.</p></div><p>Isn&rsquo;t that expected behavior for all MS Office programs?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the email program Outlook 2010 Beta that creates unusually large e-mail files that take up too much space.Isn    t that expected behavior for all MS Office programs ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the email program Outlook 2010 Beta that creates unusually large e-mail files that take up too much space.Isn’t that expected behavior for all MS Office programs?
;)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31180906</id>
	<title>Re:That's nothing compared to bugs in Outlook 2007</title>
	<author>DeltaQH</author>
	<datestamp>1265052720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah yes, the inflationary tendencies of software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes , the inflationary tendencies of software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes, the inflationary tendencies of software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31180530</id>
	<title>Re:Beta?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1265048100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this case, we're talking several hundred kilobytes for a 10-line message. That's pretty damn annoying, especially when you get a long conversation in a high-volume discussion list - since now every reply will quote the original message, and carry that overhead (even if the responder is using Outlook 2007, or a different email client altogether - so long as it is capable of and is set up to produce HTML email).</p><p>What happens there, actually, is that it puts a huge (and 99\% unused) CSS stylesheet inline inside the HTML body of the message.</p><p>Anyway, it's called a beta for a reason. I'm surprised anyone would even use it in production at this point. We do at MS, for the sake of that "dogfooding" thing (which is where the aforementioned annoyance comes from), but it's precisely so that such things don't slip through to the customers on release.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case , we 're talking several hundred kilobytes for a 10-line message .
That 's pretty damn annoying , especially when you get a long conversation in a high-volume discussion list - since now every reply will quote the original message , and carry that overhead ( even if the responder is using Outlook 2007 , or a different email client altogether - so long as it is capable of and is set up to produce HTML email ) .What happens there , actually , is that it puts a huge ( and 99 \ % unused ) CSS stylesheet inline inside the HTML body of the message.Anyway , it 's called a beta for a reason .
I 'm surprised anyone would even use it in production at this point .
We do at MS , for the sake of that " dogfooding " thing ( which is where the aforementioned annoyance comes from ) , but it 's precisely so that such things do n't slip through to the customers on release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case, we're talking several hundred kilobytes for a 10-line message.
That's pretty damn annoying, especially when you get a long conversation in a high-volume discussion list - since now every reply will quote the original message, and carry that overhead (even if the responder is using Outlook 2007, or a different email client altogether - so long as it is capable of and is set up to produce HTML email).What happens there, actually, is that it puts a huge (and 99\% unused) CSS stylesheet inline inside the HTML body of the message.Anyway, it's called a beta for a reason.
I'm surprised anyone would even use it in production at this point.
We do at MS, for the sake of that "dogfooding" thing (which is where the aforementioned annoyance comes from), but it's precisely so that such things don't slip through to the customers on release.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177892</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177370</id>
	<title>Fixed going forward</title>
	<author>neiljt</author>
	<datestamp>1265024340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like half a solution to me.  When will they fix the problem going backward?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like half a solution to me .
When will they fix the problem going backward ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like half a solution to me.
When will they fix the problem going backward?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178742</id>
	<title>Re:A bug in a beta?</title>
	<author>grcumb</author>
	<datestamp>1265031480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh my heavens!  A bug in a beta?  What is the world coming to?</p></div><p>Indeed, though a story about recursive dependencies in any product does introduce a little welcome <i>schadenfreude</i> into my day, it's a pretty trivial issue.</p><p>What I found infinitely more newsworthy about the article was this:</p><blockquote><div><p>With Outlook 2010, Microsoft is trying to take yet another stab at one of the most perplexing issues for computer users -- e-mail sprawl. Microsoft has introduced "conversation arrangement" features in previous versions of Outlook -- as have other e-mail program makers -- in which messages are saved based on the participants in the "thread" and in the order in which messages were received.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Microsoft, the company that single-handedly destroyed email communications in the 90s by placing replies at the top of the message and refusing to support inline quoting, then relying on Word (WORD!) as the default editor... has finally discovered threading!</p><p>It's touching, really. Kind of like watching an autistic adolescent say his first word....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh my heavens !
A bug in a beta ?
What is the world coming to ? Indeed , though a story about recursive dependencies in any product does introduce a little welcome schadenfreude into my day , it 's a pretty trivial issue.What I found infinitely more newsworthy about the article was this : With Outlook 2010 , Microsoft is trying to take yet another stab at one of the most perplexing issues for computer users -- e-mail sprawl .
Microsoft has introduced " conversation arrangement " features in previous versions of Outlook -- as have other e-mail program makers -- in which messages are saved based on the participants in the " thread " and in the order in which messages were received .
Microsoft , the company that single-handedly destroyed email communications in the 90s by placing replies at the top of the message and refusing to support inline quoting , then relying on Word ( WORD !
) as the default editor... has finally discovered threading ! It 's touching , really .
Kind of like watching an autistic adolescent say his first word... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh my heavens!
A bug in a beta?
What is the world coming to?Indeed, though a story about recursive dependencies in any product does introduce a little welcome schadenfreude into my day, it's a pretty trivial issue.What I found infinitely more newsworthy about the article was this:With Outlook 2010, Microsoft is trying to take yet another stab at one of the most perplexing issues for computer users -- e-mail sprawl.
Microsoft has introduced "conversation arrangement" features in previous versions of Outlook -- as have other e-mail program makers -- in which messages are saved based on the participants in the "thread" and in the order in which messages were received.
Microsoft, the company that single-handedly destroyed email communications in the 90s by placing replies at the top of the message and refusing to support inline quoting, then relying on Word (WORD!
) as the default editor... has finally discovered threading!It's touching, really.
Kind of like watching an autistic adolescent say his first word....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179292</id>
	<title>Re:That's nothing compared to bugs in Outlook 2007</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The deal seems here that people have something else in the OS interfering with Office.</p><p>There have been some that explode the phone. The issue with comp RAM, such as an Intel, there is particulate all over the RAM. These are people that have 8GB and are playing around with Office Beta. When looking at the 2010, you might as well have a better time with 2GB.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The deal seems here that people have something else in the OS interfering with Office.There have been some that explode the phone .
The issue with comp RAM , such as an Intel , there is particulate all over the RAM .
These are people that have 8GB and are playing around with Office Beta .
When looking at the 2010 , you might as well have a better time with 2GB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The deal seems here that people have something else in the OS interfering with Office.There have been some that explode the phone.
The issue with comp RAM, such as an Intel, there is particulate all over the RAM.
These are people that have 8GB and are playing around with Office Beta.
When looking at the 2010, you might as well have a better time with 2GB.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177498</id>
	<title>Written in .NET?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the garbage collection in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET keeps building up until almost out of memory. Maybe it is getting attached to every new email to try and get rid of it?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the garbage collection in .NET keeps building up until almost out of memory .
Maybe it is getting attached to every new email to try and get rid of it ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the garbage collection in .NET keeps building up until almost out of memory.
Maybe it is getting attached to every new email to try and get rid of it?
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178476</id>
	<title>Re:Outlook 64bit</title>
	<author>Jorl17</author>
	<datestamp>1265029500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suppose you weren't kind enough to report that?<br> <br>No?<br>Well then, screw you, someone might say, as it is beta and you didn'd do your part.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose you were n't kind enough to report that ?
No ? Well then , screw you , someone might say , as it is beta and you didn 'd do your part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose you weren't kind enough to report that?
No?Well then, screw you, someone might say, as it is beta and you didn'd do your part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31181682</id>
	<title>Re: BINGO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266487500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got the diagonal buzzword bingo with "going forward."</p><p>You owe me a beer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got the diagonal buzzword bingo with " going forward .
" You owe me a beer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got the diagonal buzzword bingo with "going forward.
"You owe me a beer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177606</id>
	<title>Outlook what?</title>
	<author>cvtan</author>
	<datestamp>1265025060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>2010?  I can't even get Outlook 2003 to work.  It got slower and slower until it wouldn't run at all.  Thunderbird yes, Outlook no!</htmltext>
<tokenext>2010 ?
I ca n't even get Outlook 2003 to work .
It got slower and slower until it would n't run at all .
Thunderbird yes , Outlook no !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2010?
I can't even get Outlook 2003 to work.
It got slower and slower until it wouldn't run at all.
Thunderbird yes, Outlook no!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177998</id>
	<title>FCrist psot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265026620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">leaving 7he play</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>leaving 7he play [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>leaving 7he play [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178318</id>
	<title>This problem has been in Word since 2003</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265028540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a Word bug according to the article, where Word is used as the email editor and in-lines a huge number of CSS styles with the same properties, thereby massively increasing email size.</p><p>I have experienced the same problem in earlier versions of Word (2003) saving as a normal<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc file. In some circumstances, nested lists create a huge number of redundant styles stored in the document file (10-50kB). This is particularly obvious when you then save as HTML (thousands of lines of CSS all declaring the same styles), and massive file bloat.</p><p>Obviously there's a recursion loop going awry somewhere, and it's been around for a while. TBH, I haven't checked to see if it's ever been reported on before, or fixed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a Word bug according to the article , where Word is used as the email editor and in-lines a huge number of CSS styles with the same properties , thereby massively increasing email size.I have experienced the same problem in earlier versions of Word ( 2003 ) saving as a normal .doc file .
In some circumstances , nested lists create a huge number of redundant styles stored in the document file ( 10-50kB ) .
This is particularly obvious when you then save as HTML ( thousands of lines of CSS all declaring the same styles ) , and massive file bloat.Obviously there 's a recursion loop going awry somewhere , and it 's been around for a while .
TBH , I have n't checked to see if it 's ever been reported on before , or fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a Word bug according to the article, where Word is used as the email editor and in-lines a huge number of CSS styles with the same properties, thereby massively increasing email size.I have experienced the same problem in earlier versions of Word (2003) saving as a normal .doc file.
In some circumstances, nested lists create a huge number of redundant styles stored in the document file (10-50kB).
This is particularly obvious when you then save as HTML (thousands of lines of CSS all declaring the same styles), and massive file bloat.Obviously there's a recursion loop going awry somewhere, and it's been around for a while.
TBH, I haven't checked to see if it's ever been reported on before, or fixed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31180860</id>
	<title>Re:A bug in a beta?</title>
	<author>Nathrael</author>
	<datestamp>1265051940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's like the Magic 8 Ball told me - "Outlook not so good"!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like the Magic 8 Ball told me - " Outlook not so good " !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like the Magic 8 Ball told me - "Outlook not so good"!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177650</id>
	<title>It's not news, its Far... er, I mean, slashdot.</title>
	<author>megla</author>
	<datestamp>1265025180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean really? A bug in beta software? This is outrageous, haul Microsoft up before congress immediately.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean really ?
A bug in beta software ?
This is outrageous , haul Microsoft up before congress immediately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean really?
A bug in beta software?
This is outrageous, haul Microsoft up before congress immediately.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177778</id>
	<title>Really??</title>
	<author>ArcadeNut</author>
	<datestamp>1265025720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. turning into Fox News now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is / .
turning into Fox News now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is /.
turning into Fox News now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31181730</id>
	<title>Re:A bug in a beta?</title>
	<author>Mr\_Silver</author>
	<datestamp>1266488040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Microsoft, the company that single-handedly destroyed email communications in the 90s by placing replies at the top of the message and refusing to support inline quoting, then relying on Word (WORD!) as the default editor... has finally discovered threading!</p></div></blockquote><p>Whilst I don't disagree with you on the first two points, I should point out that I've been using "Arrange by conversation" in Outlook for the past 10 years as my default view.</p><p>Granted it doesn't include in the thread the emails that I've sent back to people, only the ones I've received - but they "discovered threading" at least since Outlook 2000.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft , the company that single-handedly destroyed email communications in the 90s by placing replies at the top of the message and refusing to support inline quoting , then relying on Word ( WORD !
) as the default editor... has finally discovered threading ! Whilst I do n't disagree with you on the first two points , I should point out that I 've been using " Arrange by conversation " in Outlook for the past 10 years as my default view.Granted it does n't include in the thread the emails that I 've sent back to people , only the ones I 've received - but they " discovered threading " at least since Outlook 2000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft, the company that single-handedly destroyed email communications in the 90s by placing replies at the top of the message and refusing to support inline quoting, then relying on Word (WORD!
) as the default editor... has finally discovered threading!Whilst I don't disagree with you on the first two points, I should point out that I've been using "Arrange by conversation" in Outlook for the past 10 years as my default view.Granted it doesn't include in the thread the emails that I've sent back to people, only the ones I've received - but they "discovered threading" at least since Outlook 2000.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178480</id>
	<title>Re:Stop the presses!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265029500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A bug in beta? From an MS product? Thanks slashdot!</i></p><p>The better question is does Monster Cable(TM) know about these Monster(TM) email files so that they can sue for infringing the Monster(TM) brand?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A bug in beta ?
From an MS product ?
Thanks slashdot ! The better question is does Monster Cable ( TM ) know about these Monster ( TM ) email files so that they can sue for infringing the Monster ( TM ) brand ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bug in beta?
From an MS product?
Thanks slashdot!The better question is does Monster Cable(TM) know about these Monster(TM) email files so that they can sue for infringing the Monster(TM) brand?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31188080</id>
	<title>Re:Stop the presses!!!</title>
	<author>Adam Cerrumo</author>
	<datestamp>1266522540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thats bs. Bugs can get into every peice of tech beta just identifys it and hides it. But the problem then just gets worse after time. Get a blackberry if the work means that much to you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats bs .
Bugs can get into every peice of tech beta just identifys it and hides it .
But the problem then just gets worse after time .
Get a blackberry if the work means that much to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats bs.
Bugs can get into every peice of tech beta just identifys it and hides it.
But the problem then just gets worse after time.
Get a blackberry if the work means that much to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177336</id>
	<title>Mobile?</title>
	<author>Jugalator</author>
	<datestamp>1265024160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's this story doing in "Mobile"?</p><p>Besides, a beta bug? Front page news? Come on...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-S</p><p>No one I know even use Office 2010 in a production system yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's this story doing in " Mobile " ? Besides , a beta bug ?
Front page news ?
Come on... : -SNo one I know even use Office 2010 in a production system yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's this story doing in "Mobile"?Besides, a beta bug?
Front page news?
Come on... :-SNo one I know even use Office 2010 in a production system yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177312</id>
	<title>Problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This could be a problem for email programs that limit message sizes, such as Gmail or BlackBerry.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I'd say this this is a problem for programs that <i>don't</i> limit sizes. TFA doesn't state any numbers, but I wouldn't want my BlackBerry to try and open files with thousands of lines of redundant CSS code.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This could be a problem for email programs that limit message sizes , such as Gmail or BlackBerry .
I 'd say this this is a problem for programs that do n't limit sizes .
TFA does n't state any numbers , but I would n't want my BlackBerry to try and open files with thousands of lines of redundant CSS code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This could be a problem for email programs that limit message sizes, such as Gmail or BlackBerry.
I'd say this this is a problem for programs that don't limit sizes.
TFA doesn't state any numbers, but I wouldn't want my BlackBerry to try and open files with thousands of lines of redundant CSS code.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177638</id>
	<title>Re:How did this reach beta?</title>
	<author>bloodhawk</author>
	<datestamp>1265025180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>No this is the kind of thing a BETA is supposed to catch, i.e. bugs that were not caught by internal testing. The entire purpose of a beta is to find these sort of bugs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No this is the kind of thing a BETA is supposed to catch , i.e .
bugs that were not caught by internal testing .
The entire purpose of a beta is to find these sort of bugs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No this is the kind of thing a BETA is supposed to catch, i.e.
bugs that were not caught by internal testing.
The entire purpose of a beta is to find these sort of bugs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31181242</id>
	<title>Oh? This surprised me majorly! It's a bug?</title>
	<author>freaker\_TuC</author>
	<datestamp>1266526140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[grin=on]... was that a bug? Outlook and big files?<br>by now, I got used to big bloated files; so I didn't really care about them at all!<br>[grin=off] (wonderful to control those muscles on command)</p><p>am I glad I'm using Thunderbird<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... since I'm still searching "The right" alternative.<br>The Bat from Ritlabs used to be good..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ grin = on ] ... was that a bug ?
Outlook and big files ? by now , I got used to big bloated files ; so I did n't really care about them at all !
[ grin = off ] ( wonderful to control those muscles on command ) am I glad I 'm using Thunderbird ... since I 'm still searching " The right " alternative.The Bat from Ritlabs used to be good. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[grin=on]... was that a bug?
Outlook and big files?by now, I got used to big bloated files; so I didn't really care about them at all!
[grin=off] (wonderful to control those muscles on command)am I glad I'm using Thunderbird ... since I'm still searching "The right" alternative.The Bat from Ritlabs used to be good..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177252</id>
	<title>Re:Stop the presses!!!</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1265023860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a beta... but one that's open to the public to use against real e-mail servers, so for anybody who runs an e-mail system this is breaking news about where all their file space went...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a beta... but one that 's open to the public to use against real e-mail servers , so for anybody who runs an e-mail system this is breaking news about where all their file space went.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a beta... but one that's open to the public to use against real e-mail servers, so for anybody who runs an e-mail system this is breaking news about where all their file space went...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31181746</id>
	<title>Re:A bug in a beta?</title>
	<author>CisJokey</author>
	<datestamp>1266488220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like this (replying on top);
"by placing replies at the top of the message"

But I think you moron know that I am a 'b00n'. And you are so super fantastic geeky because you already did mailing lists in the 90's. (Where the other way can make sense).
If I call you a moron, I don't expect a reply like "you told me moron, I tell you childish". Its ok if you just tell me beeing childish.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like this ( replying on top ) ; " by placing replies at the top of the message " But I think you moron know that I am a 'b00n' .
And you are so super fantastic geeky because you already did mailing lists in the 90 's .
( Where the other way can make sense ) .
If I call you a moron , I do n't expect a reply like " you told me moron , I tell you childish " .
Its ok if you just tell me beeing childish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like this (replying on top);
"by placing replies at the top of the message"

But I think you moron know that I am a 'b00n'.
And you are so super fantastic geeky because you already did mailing lists in the 90's.
(Where the other way can make sense).
If I call you a moron, I don't expect a reply like "you told me moron, I tell you childish".
Its ok if you just tell me beeing childish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179252</id>
	<title>Re:That's nothing compared to bugs in Outlook 2007</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1265035920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I rabidly hate anything 2007 from Microsoft, in fact I am compiling a list of bugs in Vista and 2007 products that's about 300 lines long, and I've never seen any of this.  You might want to see if you have plug-ins or integrations or something interfering, or an incompetent Exchange admin.  Unless you're talking about Express, if a 2007 version exists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I rabidly hate anything 2007 from Microsoft , in fact I am compiling a list of bugs in Vista and 2007 products that 's about 300 lines long , and I 've never seen any of this .
You might want to see if you have plug-ins or integrations or something interfering , or an incompetent Exchange admin .
Unless you 're talking about Express , if a 2007 version exists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I rabidly hate anything 2007 from Microsoft, in fact I am compiling a list of bugs in Vista and 2007 products that's about 300 lines long, and I've never seen any of this.
You might want to see if you have plug-ins or integrations or something interfering, or an incompetent Exchange admin.
Unless you're talking about Express, if a 2007 version exists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177776</id>
	<title>Quick and easy patch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265025720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OpenOffice 3.2.  Seriously, no email problems.</p><p>oh wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenOffice 3.2 .
Seriously , no email problems.oh wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenOffice 3.2.
Seriously, no email problems.oh wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179116</id>
	<title>Ludicrous...always...</title>
	<author>YankDownUnder</author>
	<datestamp>1265034900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft, a company that is worth HOW MUCH? Can't ever seem to create ANY software without ANY issues, past, present or future? They've been going at this for how many years, and still can't get a single issue straight from the beginning? I just find this all so bloody amazing - they've got the money, the manpower, the resources, and still, they just can't do it. Right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft , a company that is worth HOW MUCH ?
Ca n't ever seem to create ANY software without ANY issues , past , present or future ?
They 've been going at this for how many years , and still ca n't get a single issue straight from the beginning ?
I just find this all so bloody amazing - they 've got the money , the manpower , the resources , and still , they just ca n't do it .
Right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft, a company that is worth HOW MUCH?
Can't ever seem to create ANY software without ANY issues, past, present or future?
They've been going at this for how many years, and still can't get a single issue straight from the beginning?
I just find this all so bloody amazing - they've got the money, the manpower, the resources, and still, they just can't do it.
Right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177892</id>
	<title>Beta?</title>
	<author>msauve</author>
	<datestamp>1265026140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean the fact that Outlook "creates unusually large e-mail files that take up too much space" is new?<br> <br>Silly me, thinking 3K of HTML/header overhead to send a one sentence email fell into that description, because Outlook has done that forever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean the fact that Outlook " creates unusually large e-mail files that take up too much space " is new ?
Silly me , thinking 3K of HTML/header overhead to send a one sentence email fell into that description , because Outlook has done that forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean the fact that Outlook "creates unusually large e-mail files that take up too much space" is new?
Silly me, thinking 3K of HTML/header overhead to send a one sentence email fell into that description, because Outlook has done that forever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178086</id>
	<title>Bug?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265027220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS Grunt: Sir, people are reporting Outlook 2010 having a bug that creates massive file sizes.</p><p>MS Manager: Outlook's been doing that for years. Let's call it a feature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS Grunt : Sir , people are reporting Outlook 2010 having a bug that creates massive file sizes.MS Manager : Outlook 's been doing that for years .
Let 's call it a feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS Grunt: Sir, people are reporting Outlook 2010 having a bug that creates massive file sizes.MS Manager: Outlook's been doing that for years.
Let's call it a feature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177540</id>
	<title>How did this reach beta?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't this the kind of thing that's supposed to be caught before a product goes into beta testing?  Outlook is used by large numbers of big corporations, and including numbered and/or bulleted lists are not exactly uncommon in their email.  I don't know what type of testing this went through in-house, and I'm not exactly an expert in such things, but it does seem odd that they didn't spot it sooner.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this the kind of thing that 's supposed to be caught before a product goes into beta testing ?
Outlook is used by large numbers of big corporations , and including numbered and/or bulleted lists are not exactly uncommon in their email .
I do n't know what type of testing this went through in-house , and I 'm not exactly an expert in such things , but it does seem odd that they did n't spot it sooner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this the kind of thing that's supposed to be caught before a product goes into beta testing?
Outlook is used by large numbers of big corporations, and including numbered and/or bulleted lists are not exactly uncommon in their email.
I don't know what type of testing this went through in-house, and I'm not exactly an expert in such things, but it does seem odd that they didn't spot it sooner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178422</id>
	<title>Re:Written in .NET?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265029080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, the GC cleans up gen 0 after 256kb of objects have been allocated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the GC cleans up gen 0 after 256kb of objects have been allocated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the GC cleans up gen 0 after 256kb of objects have been allocated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177530</id>
	<title>Bug Creates Monster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tokyo is so screwed!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tokyo is so screwed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tokyo is so screwed!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177162</id>
	<title>A bug in a beta?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265023380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh my heavens!  A bug in a beta?  What is the world coming to?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh my heavens !
A bug in a beta ?
What is the world coming to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh my heavens!
A bug in a beta?
What is the world coming to?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177404</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>zmollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1265024460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can they be any bigger than the emails dumbass users send around anyway? Single Lolcat pictures as ppt? A dozen numbers as a honking big Excel file?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can they be any bigger than the emails dumbass users send around anyway ?
Single Lolcat pictures as ppt ?
A dozen numbers as a honking big Excel file ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can they be any bigger than the emails dumbass users send around anyway?
Single Lolcat pictures as ppt?
A dozen numbers as a honking big Excel file?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177908</id>
	<title>That's nothing compared to bugs in Outlook 2007</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265026260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And Outlook 2007 is a *shipping product*.</p><p>Searching a subfolder inside your inbox still doesn't work (it will find items but you can't open them), It has the must unusual ideas about drag and drop attachments (sometimes it just attaches a GIF icon, but not the document itself), And my favorite, it will randomly exit with an error (an error has occured, would you like to send a report?), when right clicking selected text to change the typeface...</p><p>Outlook 2003 was a miracle of speed and stability compared to 2007, so I imagine that, given their reputation to build worse and worse products over time, Outlook 2010 will be a disaster of titanic proportions. With a slew of "features" no one ever wanted or needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And Outlook 2007 is a * shipping product * .Searching a subfolder inside your inbox still does n't work ( it will find items but you ca n't open them ) , It has the must unusual ideas about drag and drop attachments ( sometimes it just attaches a GIF icon , but not the document itself ) , And my favorite , it will randomly exit with an error ( an error has occured , would you like to send a report ?
) , when right clicking selected text to change the typeface...Outlook 2003 was a miracle of speed and stability compared to 2007 , so I imagine that , given their reputation to build worse and worse products over time , Outlook 2010 will be a disaster of titanic proportions .
With a slew of " features " no one ever wanted or needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And Outlook 2007 is a *shipping product*.Searching a subfolder inside your inbox still doesn't work (it will find items but you can't open them), It has the must unusual ideas about drag and drop attachments (sometimes it just attaches a GIF icon, but not the document itself), And my favorite, it will randomly exit with an error (an error has occured, would you like to send a report?
), when right clicking selected text to change the typeface...Outlook 2003 was a miracle of speed and stability compared to 2007, so I imagine that, given their reputation to build worse and worse products over time, Outlook 2010 will be a disaster of titanic proportions.
With a slew of "features" no one ever wanted or needed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177602</id>
	<title>You mean...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265025060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Outlook creating unusually large e-mail files was not by design?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Outlook creating unusually large e-mail files was not by design ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Outlook creating unusually large e-mail files was not by design?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179562</id>
	<title>Re:Email is largely useless anyway</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you in principle, but the alternatives aren't any better.  At the end of the day the problem is that people want a written record of their communications, even for the most trivial things.  I share a large room with 5 other people and we all send emails to each other; it's kind of sad, really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you in principle , but the alternatives are n't any better .
At the end of the day the problem is that people want a written record of their communications , even for the most trivial things .
I share a large room with 5 other people and we all send emails to each other ; it 's kind of sad , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you in principle, but the alternatives aren't any better.
At the end of the day the problem is that people want a written record of their communications, even for the most trivial things.
I share a large room with 5 other people and we all send emails to each other; it's kind of sad, really.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177292</id>
	<title>EOUS?</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1265023980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Buttercup: Westley, what about the E.O.U.S.'s?<br>Westley: Emails Of Unusual Size? I don't think they exist.<br>[Immediately, an E.O.U.S. attacks him]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Buttercup : Westley , what about the E.O.U.S .
's ? Westley : Emails Of Unusual Size ?
I do n't think they exist .
[ Immediately , an E.O.U.S .
attacks him ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buttercup: Westley, what about the E.O.U.S.
's?Westley: Emails Of Unusual Size?
I don't think they exist.
[Immediately, an E.O.U.S.
attacks him]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31191790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31180510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31181746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31180530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31180860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31182082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31180906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31181730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31183130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31188080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31181682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31180276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_17_2148229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31181794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2148229.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2148229.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2148229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2148229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2148229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2148229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2148229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31180032
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2148229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31180530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31183130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31180860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31180510
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31191790
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31181730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31180276
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31181746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31181794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2148229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31188080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2148229.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31181682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2148229.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2148229.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2148229.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31180906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31182082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2148229.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31178200
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2148229.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2148229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31179562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_17_2148229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_17_2148229.31177336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
