<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_18_1716211</id>
	<title>Two Scoops of Buzz</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1266513660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Lots of Buzz buzz is still running through the internets yet, so here's a bit more of it, just in case you aren't burnt out yet.  Google has added a <a href="http://lifehacker.com/5474654/">one-button disable option</a> to totally remove the system from Gmail.  I'm sure someone there sure wishes that had been on by default.  This is partially in response to a <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?entry\_id=57438">class action complaint</a> and follows <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/02/google-works-to-clean-up-buzz-privacy-mess-after-launch.ars">earlier cleanup efforts</a> as well as an <a href="http://www.electricpig.co.uk/2010/02/15/google-buzz-auto-following-disabled-google-apologises/">apology for auto-follow</a>.  Since there is no Facebook interaction, I still wonder what traction they will get.  But maybe this means the end of Twitter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of Buzz buzz is still running through the internets yet , so here 's a bit more of it , just in case you are n't burnt out yet .
Google has added a one-button disable option to totally remove the system from Gmail .
I 'm sure someone there sure wishes that had been on by default .
This is partially in response to a class action complaint and follows earlier cleanup efforts as well as an apology for auto-follow .
Since there is no Facebook interaction , I still wonder what traction they will get .
But maybe this means the end of Twitter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of Buzz buzz is still running through the internets yet, so here's a bit more of it, just in case you aren't burnt out yet.
Google has added a one-button disable option to totally remove the system from Gmail.
I'm sure someone there sure wishes that had been on by default.
This is partially in response to a class action complaint and follows earlier cleanup efforts as well as an apology for auto-follow.
Since there is no Facebook interaction, I still wonder what traction they will get.
But maybe this means the end of Twitter.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31192642</id>
	<title>Re:might turn out to have been smart</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266494640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Totally agree.  This was a real "Facebook" move by Google (and I mean that in its full pejorative sense).  They basically decided that it's better / easier to apologize afterwards than ask permission beforehand.   The fact is, by just releasing this for one day with the flawed privacy they got 90\% of people who use gmail into buzz with all their email contacts as a default social graph.  The speed with which they responded to the howls about privacy (which many are praising) actually makes me cynical that they must have had their updates ready to fire off all along and it was just a matter of how long they figured they could wait.  No big company makes those kinds of changes completely unexpectedly and gets them QA'd and fired off in 24 hours.  It had to be thought through beforehand.  They simply watched the cost / value curve descending and picked their time to deploy the changes and release their apology.</p><p>Nonetheless, I support buzz because it *is* massively better than Twitter in that it is based on open standards and open APIs and will at least open this space up and stop it being beholden to a single company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally agree .
This was a real " Facebook " move by Google ( and I mean that in its full pejorative sense ) .
They basically decided that it 's better / easier to apologize afterwards than ask permission beforehand .
The fact is , by just releasing this for one day with the flawed privacy they got 90 \ % of people who use gmail into buzz with all their email contacts as a default social graph .
The speed with which they responded to the howls about privacy ( which many are praising ) actually makes me cynical that they must have had their updates ready to fire off all along and it was just a matter of how long they figured they could wait .
No big company makes those kinds of changes completely unexpectedly and gets them QA 'd and fired off in 24 hours .
It had to be thought through beforehand .
They simply watched the cost / value curve descending and picked their time to deploy the changes and release their apology.Nonetheless , I support buzz because it * is * massively better than Twitter in that it is based on open standards and open APIs and will at least open this space up and stop it being beholden to a single company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally agree.
This was a real "Facebook" move by Google (and I mean that in its full pejorative sense).
They basically decided that it's better / easier to apologize afterwards than ask permission beforehand.
The fact is, by just releasing this for one day with the flawed privacy they got 90\% of people who use gmail into buzz with all their email contacts as a default social graph.
The speed with which they responded to the howls about privacy (which many are praising) actually makes me cynical that they must have had their updates ready to fire off all along and it was just a matter of how long they figured they could wait.
No big company makes those kinds of changes completely unexpectedly and gets them QA'd and fired off in 24 hours.
It had to be thought through beforehand.
They simply watched the cost / value curve descending and picked their time to deploy the changes and release their apology.Nonetheless, I support buzz because it *is* massively better than Twitter in that it is based on open standards and open APIs and will at least open this space up and stop it being beholden to a single company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187216</id>
	<title>Re:End of Twitter? I don't think SO</title>
	<author>bl8n8r</author>
	<datestamp>1266519840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; it forces you to go to the point.</p><p>I've yet to see the majority of twitter content to be relevant to anyone but the author.  Until the percentage of useful twitter content gets above 5\%, getting to the point is pointless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; it forces you to go to the point.I 've yet to see the majority of twitter content to be relevant to anyone but the author .
Until the percentage of useful twitter content gets above 5 \ % , getting to the point is pointless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; it forces you to go to the point.I've yet to see the majority of twitter content to be relevant to anyone but the author.
Until the percentage of useful twitter content gets above 5\%, getting to the point is pointless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31188386</id>
	<title>Nig6a</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266523500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">fueling int3rnal</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>fueling int3rnal [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fueling int3rnal [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186642</id>
	<title>Google Buzz?</title>
	<author>Mitchell314</author>
	<datestamp>1266517260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just ignore the bugger. No need for me to nuke. Unless Google has added really cool special effects.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just ignore the bugger .
No need for me to nuke .
Unless Google has added really cool special effects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just ignore the bugger.
No need for me to nuke.
Unless Google has added really cool special effects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31202556</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to hide</title>
	<author>jeanph01</author>
	<datestamp>1266611040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That, with the buzz fiasco, made me consider all the information that Google had on me.... And it was a lot....<br>I think that Google lives in a ivory tower and do not understand what the real world is made of...</p><p>Anyway, I'm in the process of closing my Google account, my only problem though is Google Reader, I have a lot of feeds that I follow and there do not seem to be anything that good around as reader.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That , with the buzz fiasco , made me consider all the information that Google had on me.... And it was a lot....I think that Google lives in a ivory tower and do not understand what the real world is made of...Anyway , I 'm in the process of closing my Google account , my only problem though is Google Reader , I have a lot of feeds that I follow and there do not seem to be anything that good around as reader .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That, with the buzz fiasco, made me consider all the information that Google had on me.... And it was a lot....I think that Google lives in a ivory tower and do not understand what the real world is made of...Anyway, I'm in the process of closing my Google account, my only problem though is Google Reader, I have a lot of feeds that I follow and there do not seem to be anything that good around as reader.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31195832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186964</id>
	<title>Tech media backlash</title>
	<author>eparker05</author>
	<datestamp>1266518760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google has been the darling of the tech media for a long time now, but for the last few years, more and more media companies see Google as a competitor, or see google as unfairly profiting off their publications. I think this whole fiasco is overblown by journalists who have a bone to pick with the company. Any change to a popular product like gmail is going to bother some people and offend others and all the stories seem to focus on this.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I think there are some serious issues with buzz, especially with it's added noise to the social networking scene, but most of the bad press has to do with the 'privacy issue'. Honestly, when Myspace launched every profile was public and most facebook friend lists are still public. Where is the outrage there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has been the darling of the tech media for a long time now , but for the last few years , more and more media companies see Google as a competitor , or see google as unfairly profiting off their publications .
I think this whole fiasco is overblown by journalists who have a bone to pick with the company .
Any change to a popular product like gmail is going to bother some people and offend others and all the stories seem to focus on this.Do n't get me wrong , I think there are some serious issues with buzz , especially with it 's added noise to the social networking scene , but most of the bad press has to do with the 'privacy issue' .
Honestly , when Myspace launched every profile was public and most facebook friend lists are still public .
Where is the outrage there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has been the darling of the tech media for a long time now, but for the last few years, more and more media companies see Google as a competitor, or see google as unfairly profiting off their publications.
I think this whole fiasco is overblown by journalists who have a bone to pick with the company.
Any change to a popular product like gmail is going to bother some people and offend others and all the stories seem to focus on this.Don't get me wrong, I think there are some serious issues with buzz, especially with it's added noise to the social networking scene, but most of the bad press has to do with the 'privacy issue'.
Honestly, when Myspace launched every profile was public and most facebook friend lists are still public.
Where is the outrage there?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31199168</id>
	<title>Re:End of Twitter? I don't think SO</title>
	<author>AlamedaStone</author>
	<datestamp>1266594540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One of the greatest things of twitter is precisely that; it forces you to go</p></div><p>That's one of the greatest things about laxatives too, with much the same result as using twitter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the greatest things of twitter is precisely that ; it forces you to goThat 's one of the greatest things about laxatives too , with much the same result as using twitter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the greatest things of twitter is precisely that; it forces you to goThat's one of the greatest things about laxatives too, with much the same result as using twitter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31210226</id>
	<title>I love Google....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266684000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really do. I am using all their services (search, mail, reader, groups, picassa, some docs).</p><p>You name it.</p><p>But the intrussion with Buzz was completely unnaceptable.</p><p>All of the sudden I had several guys, some of whom I didn't know, following me. And I was "following" some others.</p><p>I felt really agravated by my email account having being used in such a way.</p><p>I will be paying far more attention to Google's conduct in the future. The sad thing is that all this debacle was entirely avoidable, and some common sense would have sufficied to manage everything satisfactorily (Google should have hired me, I understand about security and privacy matters<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) ).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do .
I am using all their services ( search , mail , reader , groups , picassa , some docs ) .You name it.But the intrussion with Buzz was completely unnaceptable.All of the sudden I had several guys , some of whom I did n't know , following me .
And I was " following " some others.I felt really agravated by my email account having being used in such a way.I will be paying far more attention to Google 's conduct in the future .
The sad thing is that all this debacle was entirely avoidable , and some common sense would have sufficied to manage everything satisfactorily ( Google should have hired me , I understand about security and privacy matters : - ) ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really do.
I am using all their services (search, mail, reader, groups, picassa, some docs).You name it.But the intrussion with Buzz was completely unnaceptable.All of the sudden I had several guys, some of whom I didn't know, following me.
And I was "following" some others.I felt really agravated by my email account having being used in such a way.I will be paying far more attention to Google's conduct in the future.
The sad thing is that all this debacle was entirely avoidable, and some common sense would have sufficied to manage everything satisfactorily (Google should have hired me, I understand about security and privacy matters :-) ).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186978</id>
	<title>Not social yet.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266518820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The current so-called social networks and websites are not truly social.  They offer a level of interaction, but it is muted by their strict adherence to selfishness.  They still believe they can own your social graph.</p><p>Until websites like Facebook and services like Buzz truly offer a federated protocol they are not social.  They are barely even part of the internet until they fulfill the internet's implicit social contract that has existed from the start: anyone with the resources can throw up a service and participate.  That's true for websites, mail servers, and all of the various protocols that sit atop of the IP.</p><p>I recognize that Google is building another layer above HTTP, but that doesn't except them from the contract.  They seem to have some understanding of that fact, where they chose to make Wave federated.  I expect them to highly integrate Buzz with Wave, and in doing so they will be pushing for a truly social service.  But in the meantime it's not there yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The current so-called social networks and websites are not truly social .
They offer a level of interaction , but it is muted by their strict adherence to selfishness .
They still believe they can own your social graph.Until websites like Facebook and services like Buzz truly offer a federated protocol they are not social .
They are barely even part of the internet until they fulfill the internet 's implicit social contract that has existed from the start : anyone with the resources can throw up a service and participate .
That 's true for websites , mail servers , and all of the various protocols that sit atop of the IP.I recognize that Google is building another layer above HTTP , but that does n't except them from the contract .
They seem to have some understanding of that fact , where they chose to make Wave federated .
I expect them to highly integrate Buzz with Wave , and in doing so they will be pushing for a truly social service .
But in the meantime it 's not there yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The current so-called social networks and websites are not truly social.
They offer a level of interaction, but it is muted by their strict adherence to selfishness.
They still believe they can own your social graph.Until websites like Facebook and services like Buzz truly offer a federated protocol they are not social.
They are barely even part of the internet until they fulfill the internet's implicit social contract that has existed from the start: anyone with the resources can throw up a service and participate.
That's true for websites, mail servers, and all of the various protocols that sit atop of the IP.I recognize that Google is building another layer above HTTP, but that doesn't except them from the contract.
They seem to have some understanding of that fact, where they chose to make Wave federated.
I expect them to highly integrate Buzz with Wave, and in doing so they will be pushing for a truly social service.
But in the meantime it's not there yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187590</id>
	<title>Re:End of twitter? not likely...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1266521100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shhh... Just all act like Twitter is dying anyway, and hope the rumor will catch enough fire to get messages on Twitter going on. Until they either die in a massive flamewar, or enough arguments come up so that most Twitterers will enter our reality and start to hate Twitter. (Which also means its dead.)</p><p>It&rsquo;s the information wars. You are an Internet veteran. Act like one.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Twitter will die, because even the tiniest flaws will become huge unfathomable mountains of madness, if you give them time to grow. Let&rsquo;s throw out some seeds. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shhh... Just all act like Twitter is dying anyway , and hope the rumor will catch enough fire to get messages on Twitter going on .
Until they either die in a massive flamewar , or enough arguments come up so that most Twitterers will enter our reality and start to hate Twitter .
( Which also means its dead .
) It    s the information wars .
You are an Internet veteran .
Act like one .
: ) Twitter will die , because even the tiniest flaws will become huge unfathomable mountains of madness , if you give them time to grow .
Let    s throw out some seeds .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shhh... Just all act like Twitter is dying anyway, and hope the rumor will catch enough fire to get messages on Twitter going on.
Until they either die in a massive flamewar, or enough arguments come up so that most Twitterers will enter our reality and start to hate Twitter.
(Which also means its dead.
)It’s the information wars.
You are an Internet veteran.
Act like one.
:)Twitter will die, because even the tiniest flaws will become huge unfathomable mountains of madness, if you give them time to grow.
Let’s throw out some seeds.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187612</id>
	<title>Re:Does anybody know what EXACTLY was leaked?</title>
	<author>Andy Dodd</author>
	<datestamp>1266521160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only thing I can think of is that MAYBE Buzz would start auto-updating before you first logged into it?</p><p>It didn't retroactively update from any of the autolinked sources for me, I know that.  Buzz did autolink to some content sources, but despite that (although it could have been lack of updates from said sources), when I first logged in I had no outgoing "buzzes".  Thus it didn't matter that a bunch of people were autofollowing me and I was following them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing I can think of is that MAYBE Buzz would start auto-updating before you first logged into it ? It did n't retroactively update from any of the autolinked sources for me , I know that .
Buzz did autolink to some content sources , but despite that ( although it could have been lack of updates from said sources ) , when I first logged in I had no outgoing " buzzes " .
Thus it did n't matter that a bunch of people were autofollowing me and I was following them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing I can think of is that MAYBE Buzz would start auto-updating before you first logged into it?It didn't retroactively update from any of the autolinked sources for me, I know that.
Buzz did autolink to some content sources, but despite that (although it could have been lack of updates from said sources), when I first logged in I had no outgoing "buzzes".
Thus it didn't matter that a bunch of people were autofollowing me and I was following them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31189632</id>
	<title>Buzz off</title>
	<author>Taibhsear</author>
	<datestamp>1266483780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I prefer to keep my social networking account and the email I use for purchasing goods online separate, thank you very much. Get this shit out of my "secure" email.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer to keep my social networking account and the email I use for purchasing goods online separate , thank you very much .
Get this shit out of my " secure " email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer to keep my social networking account and the email I use for purchasing goods online separate, thank you very much.
Get this shit out of my "secure" email.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187322</id>
	<title>Re:might turn out to have been smart</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1266520260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed.  And leveraging Gmail shows they've learned that when critical mass is required, their usual method of using limited invites doesn't work.  That, and Google's notoriously short attention span, is what killed Orkut.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Facebook succeeded because they built a critical mass in a target rich environment (college students) and when enough students had graduated to form a critical mass in the 'real world', they opened it up to all comers.  Twitter succeeded because it melded the 'pure' version of Facebook (status updates) with the world of text messages.<br>
&nbsp; <br>For Buzz there is no obvious demographic or niche for Google to exploit, but Google has what no other 'startup' social networking site had - an existing massive base of installed users who've already shown a predilection to use their (Google's) services.  That they bungled their opening moves in no way invalidates their basic strategy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
And leveraging Gmail shows they 've learned that when critical mass is required , their usual method of using limited invites does n't work .
That , and Google 's notoriously short attention span , is what killed Orkut .
  Facebook succeeded because they built a critical mass in a target rich environment ( college students ) and when enough students had graduated to form a critical mass in the 'real world ' , they opened it up to all comers .
Twitter succeeded because it melded the 'pure ' version of Facebook ( status updates ) with the world of text messages .
  For Buzz there is no obvious demographic or niche for Google to exploit , but Google has what no other 'startup ' social networking site had - an existing massive base of installed users who 've already shown a predilection to use their ( Google 's ) services .
That they bungled their opening moves in no way invalidates their basic strategy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
And leveraging Gmail shows they've learned that when critical mass is required, their usual method of using limited invites doesn't work.
That, and Google's notoriously short attention span, is what killed Orkut.
  Facebook succeeded because they built a critical mass in a target rich environment (college students) and when enough students had graduated to form a critical mass in the 'real world', they opened it up to all comers.
Twitter succeeded because it melded the 'pure' version of Facebook (status updates) with the world of text messages.
  For Buzz there is no obvious demographic or niche for Google to exploit, but Google has what no other 'startup' social networking site had - an existing massive base of installed users who've already shown a predilection to use their (Google's) services.
That they bungled their opening moves in no way invalidates their basic strategy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187094</id>
	<title>Re:End of twitter? not likely...</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1266519300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Buzz <b>uses</b> Twitter as a data feed. This is convenient for Buzz, but isn't gonna make Twitter disappear any time soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Buzz uses Twitter as a data feed .
This is convenient for Buzz , but is n't gon na make Twitter disappear any time soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buzz uses Twitter as a data feed.
This is convenient for Buzz, but isn't gonna make Twitter disappear any time soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31189772</id>
	<title>lol</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266484260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>in my country, buzz is  vibrator stuck in woman vagina or asshole.  man asshole too! it feels good!</htmltext>
<tokenext>in my country , buzz is vibrator stuck in woman vagina or asshole .
man asshole too !
it feels good !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in my country, buzz is  vibrator stuck in woman vagina or asshole.
man asshole too!
it feels good!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187014</id>
	<title>no problem for google apps users</title>
	<author>notnAP</author>
	<datestamp>1266518940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Buzz is no problem for me, unless I decide I WANT to add yet another email to my list to use it.<br>ETA on implementing it for Google Apps users is months away, and there may be questions on whether it is even implemented at all for those on the free plan.<br>I consider this odd. Google Apps users tend to either be schools/small biz, or geeks.<br>Sure, Schools and Small Biz may not provide Google with much traction for Buzz, but geeks are more likely to, especially geeks who obviously like Google Stuff (tm).<br>And yet, those are more likely to be the ones hitching a free ride.<br>Things that make you go hmmmm....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Buzz is no problem for me , unless I decide I WANT to add yet another email to my list to use it.ETA on implementing it for Google Apps users is months away , and there may be questions on whether it is even implemented at all for those on the free plan.I consider this odd .
Google Apps users tend to either be schools/small biz , or geeks.Sure , Schools and Small Biz may not provide Google with much traction for Buzz , but geeks are more likely to , especially geeks who obviously like Google Stuff ( tm ) .And yet , those are more likely to be the ones hitching a free ride.Things that make you go hmmmm... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buzz is no problem for me, unless I decide I WANT to add yet another email to my list to use it.ETA on implementing it for Google Apps users is months away, and there may be questions on whether it is even implemented at all for those on the free plan.I consider this odd.
Google Apps users tend to either be schools/small biz, or geeks.Sure, Schools and Small Biz may not provide Google with much traction for Buzz, but geeks are more likely to, especially geeks who obviously like Google Stuff (tm).And yet, those are more likely to be the ones hitching a free ride.Things that make you go hmmmm....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186674</id>
	<title>It will be a glorious thing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266517380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if Google Buzz can kill Twitter.  Seriously.
<br>
Though I do wonder what Ashton Kutcher will do... hopefully, crawl back in his hole and never come out again.
<br>
Twitter is a plague that must be killed.  If anyone can do it, Google can.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if Google Buzz can kill Twitter .
Seriously . Though I do wonder what Ashton Kutcher will do... hopefully , crawl back in his hole and never come out again .
Twitter is a plague that must be killed .
If anyone can do it , Google can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if Google Buzz can kill Twitter.
Seriously.

Though I do wonder what Ashton Kutcher will do... hopefully, crawl back in his hole and never come out again.
Twitter is a plague that must be killed.
If anyone can do it, Google can.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187788</id>
	<title>Re:The privacy problem</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1266521580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is way off topic, but why in the hell would the stupid bimbo have any contact with an abusive ex at all?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is way off topic , but why in the hell would the stupid bimbo have any contact with an abusive ex at all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is way off topic, but why in the hell would the stupid bimbo have any contact with an abusive ex at all?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187192</id>
	<title>Don't Forget The Third Scoop of Buzz !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266519780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&amp;cf=all&amp;ned=us&amp;cf=all&amp;ncl=dhNzTtjKh-jifcM91liO7JtLzsItM" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">N.S.A.</a> [google.com].</p><p>I hope this helps with your communications encryptions.</p><p>Yours In Minsk,<br>K. Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>N.S.A .
[ google.com ] .I hope this helps with your communications encryptions.Yours In Minsk,K .
Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>N.S.A.
[google.com].I hope this helps with your communications encryptions.Yours In Minsk,K.
Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31196954</id>
	<title>Re:might turn out to have been smart</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1266574920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's useful, but until everyone I want to work with sorts themselves out a Wave account, it's rather crippled.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's useful , but until everyone I want to work with sorts themselves out a Wave account , it 's rather crippled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's useful, but until everyone I want to work with sorts themselves out a Wave account, it's rather crippled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31188082</id>
	<title>I use gmail for</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1266522540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use gmail for storage,thats was there claim to fame as web mail,free massive amount of storage and less intrusive ads. Why would i want to use google for anything social? there the masters of data collection.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use gmail for storage,thats was there claim to fame as web mail,free massive amount of storage and less intrusive ads .
Why would i want to use google for anything social ?
there the masters of data collection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use gmail for storage,thats was there claim to fame as web mail,free massive amount of storage and less intrusive ads.
Why would i want to use google for anything social?
there the masters of data collection.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187802</id>
	<title>Re:Does anybody know what EXACTLY was leaked?</title>
	<author>dfxm</author>
	<datestamp>1266521640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you had your Google Profile set up to be public, then people could find the information that is in the Google Profile. Buzz just gave people a link directly to your Google Profile, more or less. What it all comes down to: if you don't want the public to know something, don't post it in a public profile.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you had your Google Profile set up to be public , then people could find the information that is in the Google Profile .
Buzz just gave people a link directly to your Google Profile , more or less .
What it all comes down to : if you do n't want the public to know something , do n't post it in a public profile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you had your Google Profile set up to be public, then people could find the information that is in the Google Profile.
Buzz just gave people a link directly to your Google Profile, more or less.
What it all comes down to: if you don't want the public to know something, don't post it in a public profile.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186878</id>
	<title>To 1&#215;10^100 and beyond</title>
	<author>Darth Sdlavrot</author>
	<datestamp>1266518280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Need I say more?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Need I say more ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Need I say more?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31189538</id>
	<title>Re:End of twitter? not likely...</title>
	<author>ajs</author>
	<datestamp>1266526740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Twitter's power is that you dont have to go there to use it or update it.</p></div><p>No, Twitter's power is that it provides a platform for popular people to communicate with their followers/fans/supporters. Twitter's draw these days is that it's a great place for anyone from a mayor to a moviestar to a CEO to the president to say whatever they like.</p><p>Buzz is great for <i>me</i>, but when celebrities use it, their posts become spam magnets because the popularity of their post is shared with the responders. Twitter so loosely couples tweets with responses that there is little or no sharing of the popularity of the original.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Twitter 's power is that you dont have to go there to use it or update it.No , Twitter 's power is that it provides a platform for popular people to communicate with their followers/fans/supporters .
Twitter 's draw these days is that it 's a great place for anyone from a mayor to a moviestar to a CEO to the president to say whatever they like.Buzz is great for me , but when celebrities use it , their posts become spam magnets because the popularity of their post is shared with the responders .
Twitter so loosely couples tweets with responses that there is little or no sharing of the popularity of the original .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Twitter's power is that you dont have to go there to use it or update it.No, Twitter's power is that it provides a platform for popular people to communicate with their followers/fans/supporters.
Twitter's draw these days is that it's a great place for anyone from a mayor to a moviestar to a CEO to the president to say whatever they like.Buzz is great for me, but when celebrities use it, their posts become spam magnets because the popularity of their post is shared with the responders.
Twitter so loosely couples tweets with responses that there is little or no sharing of the popularity of the original.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31188330</id>
	<title>Buzz for Domain Apps</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1266523380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i use GMail through GAfYD.  90\% of the Googleverse stuff works there.  It's that last 10\% that's driving me nuts.  It doesn't support chat by itself (your domain host has to allow it, mine does not).  It doesn't support Buzz.</p><p>So i have kept my ol' trusty GMail account just for those.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i use GMail through GAfYD .
90 \ % of the Googleverse stuff works there .
It 's that last 10 \ % that 's driving me nuts .
It does n't support chat by itself ( your domain host has to allow it , mine does not ) .
It does n't support Buzz.So i have kept my ol ' trusty GMail account just for those .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i use GMail through GAfYD.
90\% of the Googleverse stuff works there.
It's that last 10\% that's driving me nuts.
It doesn't support chat by itself (your domain host has to allow it, mine does not).
It doesn't support Buzz.So i have kept my ol' trusty GMail account just for those.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187012</id>
	<title>Still not quite sure why twitter is necessary</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1266518940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What exactly is twitter doing that couldn't be done with existing blogging sites that have email updates? Nothing says you have to write 2k words on your blog post, you could write 120 characters on any blogging site and do the same thing.</p><p>I do like the idea of pushing towards more open standards. Email is a standard everyone can agree with, everyone can interoperate with. I can send mail from my phone to someone on a mac or a pc or linux. I can swap out clients if I find one I like more. I do like the idea of transitioning these sorts of services to protocols and then you're selecting the provider you want based on how that protocol is implemented.</p><p>I see value in what Facebook does even though I dislike the way it's implemented, similar to the way I like what Exchange/Outlook is trying to do while hating everything about the way it's actually done.</p><p>There's been talk about trying to open up the silos represented by these applications. You have your data in twitter, you have your data in facebook, you have your data in google, and there's lots of duplication across each. Facebook will talk to google to import your data but that's a bit clunky and is still just putting your stuff in another silo. I like the idea of more interoperability but am also concerned about the potential for holes. I don't mind if my facebook gets hacked because there's nothing important on there, nothing personal or embarrassing. I don't put anything there I wouldn't mind seeing on the front page of the new york times. But if facebook had tight access to my gmail, suddenly a hole in facebook could become a hole in gmail. Not so good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly is twitter doing that could n't be done with existing blogging sites that have email updates ?
Nothing says you have to write 2k words on your blog post , you could write 120 characters on any blogging site and do the same thing.I do like the idea of pushing towards more open standards .
Email is a standard everyone can agree with , everyone can interoperate with .
I can send mail from my phone to someone on a mac or a pc or linux .
I can swap out clients if I find one I like more .
I do like the idea of transitioning these sorts of services to protocols and then you 're selecting the provider you want based on how that protocol is implemented.I see value in what Facebook does even though I dislike the way it 's implemented , similar to the way I like what Exchange/Outlook is trying to do while hating everything about the way it 's actually done.There 's been talk about trying to open up the silos represented by these applications .
You have your data in twitter , you have your data in facebook , you have your data in google , and there 's lots of duplication across each .
Facebook will talk to google to import your data but that 's a bit clunky and is still just putting your stuff in another silo .
I like the idea of more interoperability but am also concerned about the potential for holes .
I do n't mind if my facebook gets hacked because there 's nothing important on there , nothing personal or embarrassing .
I do n't put anything there I would n't mind seeing on the front page of the new york times .
But if facebook had tight access to my gmail , suddenly a hole in facebook could become a hole in gmail .
Not so good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly is twitter doing that couldn't be done with existing blogging sites that have email updates?
Nothing says you have to write 2k words on your blog post, you could write 120 characters on any blogging site and do the same thing.I do like the idea of pushing towards more open standards.
Email is a standard everyone can agree with, everyone can interoperate with.
I can send mail from my phone to someone on a mac or a pc or linux.
I can swap out clients if I find one I like more.
I do like the idea of transitioning these sorts of services to protocols and then you're selecting the provider you want based on how that protocol is implemented.I see value in what Facebook does even though I dislike the way it's implemented, similar to the way I like what Exchange/Outlook is trying to do while hating everything about the way it's actually done.There's been talk about trying to open up the silos represented by these applications.
You have your data in twitter, you have your data in facebook, you have your data in google, and there's lots of duplication across each.
Facebook will talk to google to import your data but that's a bit clunky and is still just putting your stuff in another silo.
I like the idea of more interoperability but am also concerned about the potential for holes.
I don't mind if my facebook gets hacked because there's nothing important on there, nothing personal or embarrassing.
I don't put anything there I wouldn't mind seeing on the front page of the new york times.
But if facebook had tight access to my gmail, suddenly a hole in facebook could become a hole in gmail.
Not so good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31192384</id>
	<title>Re:might turn out to have been smart</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266493320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They've also lost Gmail users. I finished transferring and killing my Gmail account yesterday evening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've also lost Gmail users .
I finished transferring and killing my Gmail account yesterday evening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've also lost Gmail users.
I finished transferring and killing my Gmail account yesterday evening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31188840</id>
	<title>Re:Still not quite sure why twitter is necessary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266524940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What exactly is twitter doing that couldn't be done with existing blogging sites that have email updates?</p></div><p>It's not what you can write, it's what you can search and find. The limitation makes the content easily indexable and allows it to recognize trends a lot easier. It's a bit like user-generated google pagerank -- but much faster.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly is twitter doing that could n't be done with existing blogging sites that have email updates ? It 's not what you can write , it 's what you can search and find .
The limitation makes the content easily indexable and allows it to recognize trends a lot easier .
It 's a bit like user-generated google pagerank -- but much faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly is twitter doing that couldn't be done with existing blogging sites that have email updates?It's not what you can write, it's what you can search and find.
The limitation makes the content easily indexable and allows it to recognize trends a lot easier.
It's a bit like user-generated google pagerank -- but much faster.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186672</id>
	<title>might turn out to have been smart</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1266517380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While a lot of people are using this fiasco as evidence that Google's a bunch of techies who don't understand users, I can't really believe that it was totally unforseen and accidental. Google made a conscious decision to leverage their existing social graph of webmail users by, as automatically as possible, turning it into an actual social-network graph. If they hadn't done that, Buzz would probably not have jump-started very quickly, but now it has a huge built-in userbase. Even if a bunch of people disable it now, they're probably still way ahead in terms of total users than where they would've been if they had played nice.</p><p>So may turn out they did know what they were doing, at least from a business perspective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While a lot of people are using this fiasco as evidence that Google 's a bunch of techies who do n't understand users , I ca n't really believe that it was totally unforseen and accidental .
Google made a conscious decision to leverage their existing social graph of webmail users by , as automatically as possible , turning it into an actual social-network graph .
If they had n't done that , Buzz would probably not have jump-started very quickly , but now it has a huge built-in userbase .
Even if a bunch of people disable it now , they 're probably still way ahead in terms of total users than where they would 've been if they had played nice.So may turn out they did know what they were doing , at least from a business perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While a lot of people are using this fiasco as evidence that Google's a bunch of techies who don't understand users, I can't really believe that it was totally unforseen and accidental.
Google made a conscious decision to leverage their existing social graph of webmail users by, as automatically as possible, turning it into an actual social-network graph.
If they hadn't done that, Buzz would probably not have jump-started very quickly, but now it has a huge built-in userbase.
Even if a bunch of people disable it now, they're probably still way ahead in terms of total users than where they would've been if they had played nice.So may turn out they did know what they were doing, at least from a business perspective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31200970</id>
	<title>Re:The privacy problem</title>
	<author>Rifter13</author>
	<datestamp>1266602820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, this is WORST CASE.  It is not the norm.  For every 500,000 users, you have 1 case that is this drastic.  I am sure every service has something like this.  My ex-wife subscribed to my stream.  I didn't want that.  So you know what I did?  I blocked her.  I also went in, and followed the directions (on day 1) to make my list private.</p><p>While I admit Google could have handled this better, everyone pointing out this ONE INSTANCE of a problem, with a service that has millions of users... is getting old.  It's called an outlier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , this is WORST CASE .
It is not the norm .
For every 500,000 users , you have 1 case that is this drastic .
I am sure every service has something like this .
My ex-wife subscribed to my stream .
I did n't want that .
So you know what I did ?
I blocked her .
I also went in , and followed the directions ( on day 1 ) to make my list private.While I admit Google could have handled this better , everyone pointing out this ONE INSTANCE of a problem , with a service that has millions of users... is getting old .
It 's called an outlier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, this is WORST CASE.
It is not the norm.
For every 500,000 users, you have 1 case that is this drastic.
I am sure every service has something like this.
My ex-wife subscribed to my stream.
I didn't want that.
So you know what I did?
I blocked her.
I also went in, and followed the directions (on day 1) to make my list private.While I admit Google could have handled this better, everyone pointing out this ONE INSTANCE of a problem, with a service that has millions of users... is getting old.
It's called an outlier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31190226</id>
	<title>Re:Still not quite sure why twitter is necessary</title>
	<author>vitaflo</author>
	<datestamp>1266485460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There's been talk about trying to open up the silos represented by these applications.</p></div></blockquote><p>This is exactly the long range plan of Buzz.  They are trying to open it up so that someday in the future, it won't matter where your social profile is stored, if things are open enough, everything can interconnect.  People who think that Buzz is just another Facebook or Twitter are missing the bigger picture they're trying to build here.  See:</p><p><a href="http://www.google.com/buzz/dclinton/XxER6oP4WGe/The-best-way-to-get-a-sense-of-where-the-Buzz-API" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/buzz/dclinton/XxER6oP4WGe/The-best-way-to-get-a-sense-of-where-the-Buzz-API</a> [google.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's been talk about trying to open up the silos represented by these applications.This is exactly the long range plan of Buzz .
They are trying to open it up so that someday in the future , it wo n't matter where your social profile is stored , if things are open enough , everything can interconnect .
People who think that Buzz is just another Facebook or Twitter are missing the bigger picture they 're trying to build here .
See : http : //www.google.com/buzz/dclinton/XxER6oP4WGe/The-best-way-to-get-a-sense-of-where-the-Buzz-API [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's been talk about trying to open up the silos represented by these applications.This is exactly the long range plan of Buzz.
They are trying to open it up so that someday in the future, it won't matter where your social profile is stored, if things are open enough, everything can interconnect.
People who think that Buzz is just another Facebook or Twitter are missing the bigger picture they're trying to build here.
See:http://www.google.com/buzz/dclinton/XxER6oP4WGe/The-best-way-to-get-a-sense-of-where-the-Buzz-API [google.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187034</id>
	<title>I like it</title>
	<author>musicalmicah</author>
	<datestamp>1266519060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm using it with my friends and it feels pretty nice. Privacy options are decently understandable, relatively granular, and it's not all that invasive. It's an excellent way to start a conversation with a select group of individuals you know, without the 140-character limitations of Twitter or the OMG APPLICATIONS environment of Facebook. Moreover, TONS of people already have gmail accounts so it's not much work to get people to use it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm using it with my friends and it feels pretty nice .
Privacy options are decently understandable , relatively granular , and it 's not all that invasive .
It 's an excellent way to start a conversation with a select group of individuals you know , without the 140-character limitations of Twitter or the OMG APPLICATIONS environment of Facebook .
Moreover , TONS of people already have gmail accounts so it 's not much work to get people to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm using it with my friends and it feels pretty nice.
Privacy options are decently understandable, relatively granular, and it's not all that invasive.
It's an excellent way to start a conversation with a select group of individuals you know, without the 140-character limitations of Twitter or the OMG APPLICATIONS environment of Facebook.
Moreover, TONS of people already have gmail accounts so it's not much work to get people to use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31188188</id>
	<title>Google Buzz + Google Reader</title>
	<author>thetartanavenger</author>
	<datestamp>1266522960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why oh why must they force the integration of Google Buzz and Google Reader? I use google reader every day, often share things with various contacts, and read things that have been shared with me. It was awesome. Then Google Buzz came along and forced integration of the two. I don't want Google Buzz but if I go ahead and remove it, it'll remove the sharing abilities I had within Google Reader. I understand the possible benefit of having the two connected, by choice, but without choice Google is simply screwing up one of their actually decent products!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why oh why must they force the integration of Google Buzz and Google Reader ?
I use google reader every day , often share things with various contacts , and read things that have been shared with me .
It was awesome .
Then Google Buzz came along and forced integration of the two .
I do n't want Google Buzz but if I go ahead and remove it , it 'll remove the sharing abilities I had within Google Reader .
I understand the possible benefit of having the two connected , by choice , but without choice Google is simply screwing up one of their actually decent products !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why oh why must they force the integration of Google Buzz and Google Reader?
I use google reader every day, often share things with various contacts, and read things that have been shared with me.
It was awesome.
Then Google Buzz came along and forced integration of the two.
I don't want Google Buzz but if I go ahead and remove it, it'll remove the sharing abilities I had within Google Reader.
I understand the possible benefit of having the two connected, by choice, but without choice Google is simply screwing up one of their actually decent products!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186820</id>
	<title>Re:End of twitter? not likely...</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1266518100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, Buzz has something better...  Interoperability with -every- site out there.  If the site has an RSS feed for your updates, you can bring them into Buzz really easily.  If it doesn't, the site can choose to integrate more directly with Buzz.</p><p>The only thing I've found lacking in Buzz is the ability to find and follow random people.  With twitter, when I'm learning Japanese, I can watch the live twitter global feed and find people posting interesting things in Japanese and follow them.  Buzz doesn't have that...  Yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , Buzz has something better... Interoperability with -every- site out there .
If the site has an RSS feed for your updates , you can bring them into Buzz really easily .
If it does n't , the site can choose to integrate more directly with Buzz.The only thing I 've found lacking in Buzz is the ability to find and follow random people .
With twitter , when I 'm learning Japanese , I can watch the live twitter global feed and find people posting interesting things in Japanese and follow them .
Buzz does n't have that... Yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, Buzz has something better...  Interoperability with -every- site out there.
If the site has an RSS feed for your updates, you can bring them into Buzz really easily.
If it doesn't, the site can choose to integrate more directly with Buzz.The only thing I've found lacking in Buzz is the ability to find and follow random people.
With twitter, when I'm learning Japanese, I can watch the live twitter global feed and find people posting interesting things in Japanese and follow them.
Buzz doesn't have that...  Yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31188528</id>
	<title>too late google</title>
	<author>CKW</author>
	<datestamp>1266523920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I deleted my gmail account as soon as I heard about the horrific gross absent-minded violation of my privacy.  "fixing things after the fact" doesn't cut it when it comes to things like this.  If they're this utterly stupid once, then they'll be this stupid again.</p><p>Seriously, google at one time was "I trust them more than anyone, do no evil and they seem to mean it", but then lately over to "maybe kinda not trust" - but this throws them all the way right through to "trust less that Microsoft, and no where f***** near as trustworthy as Yahoo".</p><p>I will not under any circumstances ever trust them with anything important ever again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I deleted my gmail account as soon as I heard about the horrific gross absent-minded violation of my privacy .
" fixing things after the fact " does n't cut it when it comes to things like this .
If they 're this utterly stupid once , then they 'll be this stupid again.Seriously , google at one time was " I trust them more than anyone , do no evil and they seem to mean it " , but then lately over to " maybe kinda not trust " - but this throws them all the way right through to " trust less that Microsoft , and no where f * * * * * near as trustworthy as Yahoo " .I will not under any circumstances ever trust them with anything important ever again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I deleted my gmail account as soon as I heard about the horrific gross absent-minded violation of my privacy.
"fixing things after the fact" doesn't cut it when it comes to things like this.
If they're this utterly stupid once, then they'll be this stupid again.Seriously, google at one time was "I trust them more than anyone, do no evil and they seem to mean it", but then lately over to "maybe kinda not trust" - but this throws them all the way right through to "trust less that Microsoft, and no where f***** near as trustworthy as Yahoo".I will not under any circumstances ever trust them with anything important ever again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31191224</id>
	<title>yeah twitter has more features too!</title>
	<author>commodoresloat</author>
	<datestamp>1266488280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google buzz is useless until it adds a "Please Rob Me" function.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google buzz is useless until it adds a " Please Rob Me " function .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google buzz is useless until it adds a "Please Rob Me" function.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31193344</id>
	<title>oops</title>
	<author>KingPin27</author>
	<datestamp>1266498060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Twiggle</htmltext>
<tokenext>Twiggle</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Twiggle</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31218772</id>
	<title>Economics - $$ is #1 (Don't be evil?)</title>
	<author>josephcmiller2</author>
	<datestamp>1266771240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's probably a lot cheaper to pay out a class-action lawsuit than it is to advertise and persuade and plead and beg people to use their service.  Google sold out when they went public (literally) and trends are showing they don't care anymore about their users.  The strategy benefits their real customers (advertisers) and their stockholders much more.  They drew a line in the sand but just kept adding beach on the other side.  It's a show of their lack of conviction, which is common to most people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's probably a lot cheaper to pay out a class-action lawsuit than it is to advertise and persuade and plead and beg people to use their service .
Google sold out when they went public ( literally ) and trends are showing they do n't care anymore about their users .
The strategy benefits their real customers ( advertisers ) and their stockholders much more .
They drew a line in the sand but just kept adding beach on the other side .
It 's a show of their lack of conviction , which is common to most people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's probably a lot cheaper to pay out a class-action lawsuit than it is to advertise and persuade and plead and beg people to use their service.
Google sold out when they went public (literally) and trends are showing they don't care anymore about their users.
The strategy benefits their real customers (advertisers) and their stockholders much more.
They drew a line in the sand but just kept adding beach on the other side.
It's a show of their lack of conviction, which is common to most people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31193480</id>
	<title>Re:might turn out to have been smart</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1266498840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I played with Wave for a few hours, but I never figured out what it was *for*. I tried making a Wave for Godzilla fans, but then it turns out you can't just publish it to everybody like a website. (Or maybe you can and I never figured out how?)</p><p>Also, it worked horribly in Firefox, bogging down to a standstill after only a few hours. Oh well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I played with Wave for a few hours , but I never figured out what it was * for * .
I tried making a Wave for Godzilla fans , but then it turns out you ca n't just publish it to everybody like a website .
( Or maybe you can and I never figured out how ?
) Also , it worked horribly in Firefox , bogging down to a standstill after only a few hours .
Oh well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I played with Wave for a few hours, but I never figured out what it was *for*.
I tried making a Wave for Godzilla fans, but then it turns out you can't just publish it to everybody like a website.
(Or maybe you can and I never figured out how?
)Also, it worked horribly in Firefox, bogging down to a standstill after only a few hours.
Oh well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31188008</id>
	<title>And the disable button is called...</title>
	<author>Caption Wierd</author>
	<datestamp>1266522240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Buzz Off?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Buzz Off ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buzz Off?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31193546</id>
	<title>Re:The privacy problem</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1266499140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the way Buzz worked when released, it didn't matter what direction the contact went in. If he sent her emails, it considered him a "friend" even if she never replied, or indeed deleted them all immediately.</p><p>So basically, Buzz rewarded stalkers by giving them *more* information about their victims.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the way Buzz worked when released , it did n't matter what direction the contact went in .
If he sent her emails , it considered him a " friend " even if she never replied , or indeed deleted them all immediately.So basically , Buzz rewarded stalkers by giving them * more * information about their victims .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the way Buzz worked when released, it didn't matter what direction the contact went in.
If he sent her emails, it considered him a "friend" even if she never replied, or indeed deleted them all immediately.So basically, Buzz rewarded stalkers by giving them *more* information about their victims.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31191638</id>
	<title>End of Twitter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266489960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"But maybe this means the end of Twitter".      One can only hope!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" But maybe this means the end of Twitter " .
One can only hope !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But maybe this means the end of Twitter".
One can only hope!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186648</id>
	<title>First!</title>
	<author>saisuman</author>
	<datestamp>1266517260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How was twitter going to make money anyway?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How was twitter going to make money anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How was twitter going to make money anyway?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31191628</id>
	<title>Re:First!</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1266489900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shakedowns.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shakedowns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shakedowns.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31188140</id>
	<title>Buzz by email</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1266522840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And all Google has to do is create a unique Buzz email address to send updates to (like Facebook has recently done), and you get instant support on any platform capable of sending email.</p></div></blockquote><p>You can post Buzz by email to buzz@gmail.com from your gmail account. So as long as your gmail account is setup in your mail client, this is in place now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And all Google has to do is create a unique Buzz email address to send updates to ( like Facebook has recently done ) , and you get instant support on any platform capable of sending email.You can post Buzz by email to buzz @ gmail.com from your gmail account .
So as long as your gmail account is setup in your mail client , this is in place now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And all Google has to do is create a unique Buzz email address to send updates to (like Facebook has recently done), and you get instant support on any platform capable of sending email.You can post Buzz by email to buzz@gmail.com from your gmail account.
So as long as your gmail account is setup in your mail client, this is in place now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31188458</id>
	<title>Re:End of twitter? not likely...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266523740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't use twitter and I won't use this, either. I gave it a shot (after the initial major privacy concerns were fixed), but I kept getting dozens of "followers" every day and I don't have a fucking clue who ANY of them are. Even worse, the only way to fully disable "buzz" is to use their one-button "remove my account" function... which ALSO NEEDLESSLY DELETES YOUR GOOGLE PROFILE. Why!? I want my google profile. I just don't fucking want to use that Buzz shit. There's no reason to delete my profile just to delete buzz. They are clearly tying the two together so that people will go to delete buzz and see that it will also remove their profile and they'll stop and say "well shit, I really want my profile still.... so I guess I can't remove buzz".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't use twitter and I wo n't use this , either .
I gave it a shot ( after the initial major privacy concerns were fixed ) , but I kept getting dozens of " followers " every day and I do n't have a fucking clue who ANY of them are .
Even worse , the only way to fully disable " buzz " is to use their one-button " remove my account " function... which ALSO NEEDLESSLY DELETES YOUR GOOGLE PROFILE .
Why ! ? I want my google profile .
I just do n't fucking want to use that Buzz shit .
There 's no reason to delete my profile just to delete buzz .
They are clearly tying the two together so that people will go to delete buzz and see that it will also remove their profile and they 'll stop and say " well shit , I really want my profile still.... so I guess I ca n't remove buzz " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't use twitter and I won't use this, either.
I gave it a shot (after the initial major privacy concerns were fixed), but I kept getting dozens of "followers" every day and I don't have a fucking clue who ANY of them are.
Even worse, the only way to fully disable "buzz" is to use their one-button "remove my account" function... which ALSO NEEDLESSLY DELETES YOUR GOOGLE PROFILE.
Why!? I want my google profile.
I just don't fucking want to use that Buzz shit.
There's no reason to delete my profile just to delete buzz.
They are clearly tying the two together so that people will go to delete buzz and see that it will also remove their profile and they'll stop and say "well shit, I really want my profile still.... so I guess I can't remove buzz".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186946</id>
	<title>things holding back buzz</title>
	<author>msbmsb</author>
	<datestamp>1266518700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At the moment, there are a number of things holding buzz back from widespread usage:<br> <br>

* buzz has a userbase<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/ceiling/: the number of gmail users; the userbase may be large but it's closed and entry is a large hurdle for many<br>
* complicating the adoption is the number of those gmail users whose friends also use gmail and would be likely to use buzz, lowering the actual ceiling further <br>
* when people see that not many of their friends are using it, but are/have been using other services, that makes buzz adoption difficult<br> <br>

there are advantages to buzz of course (mobile/geo-loc/post length/etc), but the question remains whether those advantages will eventually outweigh the challenges to more widespread adoption.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the moment , there are a number of things holding buzz back from widespread usage : * buzz has a userbase /ceiling/ : the number of gmail users ; the userbase may be large but it 's closed and entry is a large hurdle for many * complicating the adoption is the number of those gmail users whose friends also use gmail and would be likely to use buzz , lowering the actual ceiling further * when people see that not many of their friends are using it , but are/have been using other services , that makes buzz adoption difficult there are advantages to buzz of course ( mobile/geo-loc/post length/etc ) , but the question remains whether those advantages will eventually outweigh the challenges to more widespread adoption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the moment, there are a number of things holding buzz back from widespread usage: 

* buzz has a userbase /ceiling/: the number of gmail users; the userbase may be large but it's closed and entry is a large hurdle for many
* complicating the adoption is the number of those gmail users whose friends also use gmail and would be likely to use buzz, lowering the actual ceiling further 
* when people see that not many of their friends are using it, but are/have been using other services, that makes buzz adoption difficult 

there are advantages to buzz of course (mobile/geo-loc/post length/etc), but the question remains whether those advantages will eventually outweigh the challenges to more widespread adoption.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31190088</id>
	<title>Re:Still not quite sure why twitter is necessary</title>
	<author>nbates</author>
	<datestamp>1266485100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use it as a human-powered net of blog posts, web pages and news  recommendations.</p><p>I use two twitter accounts, in one I get frequent updates on political and economical news of my country, in the other I get updates about game programming. In both I get obscure articles I wouldn't get just by googling, and I get them faster than google indexes them.</p><p>It is not a perfect recommendation system, I get some "lol, look at my catz" lines, but it works. You get interesting posts most of the times. But I also found out some new blogs via twitter, which I subscribed in my RSS feed reader. I also have followers that read my blog posts when I tweet them.</p><p>I also found it a good way to know people. You tweet about a topic, and start knowing people that's into the same things you are. If you find somebody particularly smart, funny, insightful, you move to IM and mail, but twitter is a great place to know them. I happened to know two guys who work at home as I do and have the same interests and now we chat frequently.</p><p>Why not using Facebook instead? Well, I use facebook from time to time, but my contacts there are people I know IRL, which are not very technically inclined and most of the time post photos of their family or keep me updated on their advances on Farmville. Twitter is just an unobtrusive medium, Facebook tries too hard to be a platform where you do things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use it as a human-powered net of blog posts , web pages and news recommendations.I use two twitter accounts , in one I get frequent updates on political and economical news of my country , in the other I get updates about game programming .
In both I get obscure articles I would n't get just by googling , and I get them faster than google indexes them.It is not a perfect recommendation system , I get some " lol , look at my catz " lines , but it works .
You get interesting posts most of the times .
But I also found out some new blogs via twitter , which I subscribed in my RSS feed reader .
I also have followers that read my blog posts when I tweet them.I also found it a good way to know people .
You tweet about a topic , and start knowing people that 's into the same things you are .
If you find somebody particularly smart , funny , insightful , you move to IM and mail , but twitter is a great place to know them .
I happened to know two guys who work at home as I do and have the same interests and now we chat frequently.Why not using Facebook instead ?
Well , I use facebook from time to time , but my contacts there are people I know IRL , which are not very technically inclined and most of the time post photos of their family or keep me updated on their advances on Farmville .
Twitter is just an unobtrusive medium , Facebook tries too hard to be a platform where you do things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use it as a human-powered net of blog posts, web pages and news  recommendations.I use two twitter accounts, in one I get frequent updates on political and economical news of my country, in the other I get updates about game programming.
In both I get obscure articles I wouldn't get just by googling, and I get them faster than google indexes them.It is not a perfect recommendation system, I get some "lol, look at my catz" lines, but it works.
You get interesting posts most of the times.
But I also found out some new blogs via twitter, which I subscribed in my RSS feed reader.
I also have followers that read my blog posts when I tweet them.I also found it a good way to know people.
You tweet about a topic, and start knowing people that's into the same things you are.
If you find somebody particularly smart, funny, insightful, you move to IM and mail, but twitter is a great place to know them.
I happened to know two guys who work at home as I do and have the same interests and now we chat frequently.Why not using Facebook instead?
Well, I use facebook from time to time, but my contacts there are people I know IRL, which are not very technically inclined and most of the time post photos of their family or keep me updated on their advances on Farmville.
Twitter is just an unobtrusive medium, Facebook tries too hard to be a platform where you do things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31192102</id>
	<title>Re:might turn out to have been smart</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1266491820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use Wave and I also find it very useful, but I have to admit, most of the people I've wanted to use it with (and that I've sent invites too) are not on board.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Wave and I also find it very useful , but I have to admit , most of the people I 've wanted to use it with ( and that I 've sent invites too ) are not on board .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Wave and I also find it very useful, but I have to admit, most of the people I've wanted to use it with (and that I've sent invites too) are not on board.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187968</id>
	<title>Re:Still not quite sure why twitter is necessary</title>
	<author>city</author>
	<datestamp>1266522180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nothing says you have to write 2k words on your blog post, you could write 120 characters on any blogging site and do the same thing.</p></div><p>
New research shows that anyone with the compulsion to post to a blog is physically unable to resist the urge to write anyting less than a 2,000 word bloviation. Twitter is to a blogger as a Nicoderme patch is to smoker.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing says you have to write 2k words on your blog post , you could write 120 characters on any blogging site and do the same thing .
New research shows that anyone with the compulsion to post to a blog is physically unable to resist the urge to write anyting less than a 2,000 word bloviation .
Twitter is to a blogger as a Nicoderme patch is to smoker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing says you have to write 2k words on your blog post, you could write 120 characters on any blogging site and do the same thing.
New research shows that anyone with the compulsion to post to a blog is physically unable to resist the urge to write anyting less than a 2,000 word bloviation.
Twitter is to a blogger as a Nicoderme patch is to smoker.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31188410</id>
	<title>I want plausible deniability</title>
	<author>IronChef</author>
	<datestamp>1266523560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I might use Buzz, Facebook, etc. if it was easier to deal with unwanted contacts. No, Weird Guy From Work, I do not want to friend you... and rather than have that conversation over and over, I just don't use those services.</p><p>But if I could add just REAL friends, and be 100\% invisible to everyone else... that would be great. If I have not explicitly invited you into my inner circle, you shouldn't even see that I am a user of the site, if I don't want you to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I might use Buzz , Facebook , etc .
if it was easier to deal with unwanted contacts .
No , Weird Guy From Work , I do not want to friend you... and rather than have that conversation over and over , I just do n't use those services.But if I could add just REAL friends , and be 100 \ % invisible to everyone else... that would be great .
If I have not explicitly invited you into my inner circle , you should n't even see that I am a user of the site , if I do n't want you to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I might use Buzz, Facebook, etc.
if it was easier to deal with unwanted contacts.
No, Weird Guy From Work, I do not want to friend you... and rather than have that conversation over and over, I just don't use those services.But if I could add just REAL friends, and be 100\% invisible to everyone else... that would be great.
If I have not explicitly invited you into my inner circle, you shouldn't even see that I am a user of the site, if I don't want you to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31191070</id>
	<title>Re:might turn out to have been smart</title>
	<author>PuritySyrup</author>
	<datestamp>1266487860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quite apart from the fallout to Google's reputation, there are still the complaint filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center with the American FCC, and the preliminary investigation begun by the Canadian Privacy Commissioner. (To say nothing of Google Canada's snotty response to the latter.) Do these somehow fall outside a "business perspective," or have I misunderstood what you meant by that term?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite apart from the fallout to Google 's reputation , there are still the complaint filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center with the American FCC , and the preliminary investigation begun by the Canadian Privacy Commissioner .
( To say nothing of Google Canada 's snotty response to the latter .
) Do these somehow fall outside a " business perspective , " or have I misunderstood what you meant by that term ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite apart from the fallout to Google's reputation, there are still the complaint filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center with the American FCC, and the preliminary investigation begun by the Canadian Privacy Commissioner.
(To say nothing of Google Canada's snotty response to the latter.
) Do these somehow fall outside a "business perspective," or have I misunderstood what you meant by that term?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31210870</id>
	<title>There is the little privacy problem.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266689580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't use Facebook because I don't want to be stalked online, and they will not get my real name anytime soon.</p><p>So Why should I use something where my privacy is so svagedely exposed?</p><p>I want to keep family, friends, colleagues, acquaintances, business partners and ocassional contacts perfectly isolated from each other. I don't want people in my real life to intrude into my online activities and viceversa.</p><p>If Google wants to do something about this they could develop the concept of personality or of profiles, so I can check different personality's activities without mixing things.</p><p>I would love to have different email addresses which I can check in the same place and which address books, contacts, buzz activity and others remain neatly separated.</p><p>As things currently are, having several different email accounts in Google is a PITA. Doable but an absolute PITA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't use Facebook because I do n't want to be stalked online , and they will not get my real name anytime soon.So Why should I use something where my privacy is so svagedely exposed ? I want to keep family , friends , colleagues , acquaintances , business partners and ocassional contacts perfectly isolated from each other .
I do n't want people in my real life to intrude into my online activities and viceversa.If Google wants to do something about this they could develop the concept of personality or of profiles , so I can check different personality 's activities without mixing things.I would love to have different email addresses which I can check in the same place and which address books , contacts , buzz activity and others remain neatly separated.As things currently are , having several different email accounts in Google is a PITA .
Doable but an absolute PITA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't use Facebook because I don't want to be stalked online, and they will not get my real name anytime soon.So Why should I use something where my privacy is so svagedely exposed?I want to keep family, friends, colleagues, acquaintances, business partners and ocassional contacts perfectly isolated from each other.
I don't want people in my real life to intrude into my online activities and viceversa.If Google wants to do something about this they could develop the concept of personality or of profiles, so I can check different personality's activities without mixing things.I would love to have different email addresses which I can check in the same place and which address books, contacts, buzz activity and others remain neatly separated.As things currently are, having several different email accounts in Google is a PITA.
Doable but an absolute PITA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187108</id>
	<title>Does anybody know what EXACTLY was leaked?</title>
	<author>datasauce</author>
	<datestamp>1266519420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Before Buzz was changed to suggest, instead of automatically follow, what information was jeopardized? Could somebody see your other contacts, your contacts email addresses, your location? I am not sure I understand what was actually leaked. I noticed in one of the links it says some woman's ex husband was able to find her location through Buzz. How is that possible and how could Google be so stupid! Someone please elaborate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before Buzz was changed to suggest , instead of automatically follow , what information was jeopardized ?
Could somebody see your other contacts , your contacts email addresses , your location ?
I am not sure I understand what was actually leaked .
I noticed in one of the links it says some woman 's ex husband was able to find her location through Buzz .
How is that possible and how could Google be so stupid !
Someone please elaborate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before Buzz was changed to suggest, instead of automatically follow, what information was jeopardized?
Could somebody see your other contacts, your contacts email addresses, your location?
I am not sure I understand what was actually leaked.
I noticed in one of the links it says some woman's ex husband was able to find her location through Buzz.
How is that possible and how could Google be so stupid!
Someone please elaborate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186838</id>
	<title>Re:might turn out to have been smart</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1266518160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I think it -would- have.  Have you seen the clamor for Google invites?  Any time a new service comes out, even if it's going to be meh, people go nuts to get invites.  Google Wave, for instance...  Does anyone actually still use that?  It was all the rage when nobody had invites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I think it -would- have .
Have you seen the clamor for Google invites ?
Any time a new service comes out , even if it 's going to be meh , people go nuts to get invites .
Google Wave , for instance... Does anyone actually still use that ?
It was all the rage when nobody had invites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I think it -would- have.
Have you seen the clamor for Google invites?
Any time a new service comes out, even if it's going to be meh, people go nuts to get invites.
Google Wave, for instance...  Does anyone actually still use that?
It was all the rage when nobody had invites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186656</id>
	<title>End of twitter?  not likely...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266517320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Twitter's power is that you dont have to go there to use it or update it.   I've got 90,000,000 twitter apps to choose from on EVERY platform.  Hell even my home automation gear from crestron has twitter interoperability.</p><p>Twitter has critical mass and support on everything..  Buzz has none of that currently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Twitter 's power is that you dont have to go there to use it or update it .
I 've got 90,000,000 twitter apps to choose from on EVERY platform .
Hell even my home automation gear from crestron has twitter interoperability.Twitter has critical mass and support on everything.. Buzz has none of that currently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Twitter's power is that you dont have to go there to use it or update it.
I've got 90,000,000 twitter apps to choose from on EVERY platform.
Hell even my home automation gear from crestron has twitter interoperability.Twitter has critical mass and support on everything..  Buzz has none of that currently.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187142</id>
	<title>Re:End of twitter? not likely...</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1266519540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Buzz doesn't support Blackberry* yet. Not everyone has a Android or iPhone. So I would say that until The Google decides to support Blackberry with a native app, then there is no option but to ignore it.</p><p>*Appearently Opera on BB runs the Javascript needed, but it is a hack/cludge to d/l Opera and bypass all the warnings needed to BUZZ.</p><p>** I wonder if we're gonna call people who "Buzz"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... wait for it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Buzzards<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Buzz does n't support Blackberry * yet .
Not everyone has a Android or iPhone .
So I would say that until The Google decides to support Blackberry with a native app , then there is no option but to ignore it .
* Appearently Opera on BB runs the Javascript needed , but it is a hack/cludge to d/l Opera and bypass all the warnings needed to BUZZ .
* * I wonder if we 're gon na call people who " Buzz " .... wait for it ... Buzzards ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buzz doesn't support Blackberry* yet.
Not everyone has a Android or iPhone.
So I would say that until The Google decides to support Blackberry with a native app, then there is no option but to ignore it.
*Appearently Opera on BB runs the Javascript needed, but it is a hack/cludge to d/l Opera and bypass all the warnings needed to BUZZ.
** I wonder if we're gonna call people who "Buzz" .... wait for it ... Buzzards ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187136</id>
	<title>Convergence</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1266519540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the worrying things in buzz is that you can use it as a blogging engine. You can search for public buzzes that have some text you are interested into, you can comment on them (no registration required, more than being able to participate in buzz) and from there follow the original poster if you want, is not just a short tweet, but a full entry. Same for photos, videos, etc. It blends communities, with blogs, with mails. But all with just google ads. Probably is more or less the same with facebook, and if well looks a bit more open to internet, still could end being a walled garden too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the worrying things in buzz is that you can use it as a blogging engine .
You can search for public buzzes that have some text you are interested into , you can comment on them ( no registration required , more than being able to participate in buzz ) and from there follow the original poster if you want , is not just a short tweet , but a full entry .
Same for photos , videos , etc .
It blends communities , with blogs , with mails .
But all with just google ads .
Probably is more or less the same with facebook , and if well looks a bit more open to internet , still could end being a walled garden too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the worrying things in buzz is that you can use it as a blogging engine.
You can search for public buzzes that have some text you are interested into, you can comment on them (no registration required, more than being able to participate in buzz) and from there follow the original poster if you want, is not just a short tweet, but a full entry.
Same for photos, videos, etc.
It blends communities, with blogs, with mails.
But all with just google ads.
Probably is more or less the same with facebook, and if well looks a bit more open to internet, still could end being a walled garden too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31193998</id>
	<title>Re:might turn out to have been smart</title>
	<author>Bieeanda</author>
	<datestamp>1266502080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree entirely. This was not an oversight-- it was an intentional attempt to leverage their other products to force users to interact with Buzz, in the hopes that they would adopt it as the short-IM service of choice. That there were so many hoops to jump through, before they started to backpedal, speaks volumes of their intent toward it. Buzz was something that you could turn off in one place, then turn off in another, but by the time you found it in a third and fourth place, you just didn't give a shit any more.<p>Personally, I've been using the original Gmail client because of 'functionality' like this that I can't otherwise turn off. Their tag-along Jabber app is useless to me, and I would really like to slap whoever made the <i>fucking HUGE</i> tooltips that pop up when you mouse over an address in the bells and whistles version of the client.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree entirely .
This was not an oversight-- it was an intentional attempt to leverage their other products to force users to interact with Buzz , in the hopes that they would adopt it as the short-IM service of choice .
That there were so many hoops to jump through , before they started to backpedal , speaks volumes of their intent toward it .
Buzz was something that you could turn off in one place , then turn off in another , but by the time you found it in a third and fourth place , you just did n't give a shit any more.Personally , I 've been using the original Gmail client because of 'functionality ' like this that I ca n't otherwise turn off .
Their tag-along Jabber app is useless to me , and I would really like to slap whoever made the fucking HUGE tooltips that pop up when you mouse over an address in the bells and whistles version of the client .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree entirely.
This was not an oversight-- it was an intentional attempt to leverage their other products to force users to interact with Buzz, in the hopes that they would adopt it as the short-IM service of choice.
That there were so many hoops to jump through, before they started to backpedal, speaks volumes of their intent toward it.
Buzz was something that you could turn off in one place, then turn off in another, but by the time you found it in a third and fourth place, you just didn't give a shit any more.Personally, I've been using the original Gmail client because of 'functionality' like this that I can't otherwise turn off.
Their tag-along Jabber app is useless to me, and I would really like to slap whoever made the fucking HUGE tooltips that pop up when you mouse over an address in the bells and whistles version of the client.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187512</id>
	<title>Re:might turn out to have been smart</title>
	<author>Andy Dodd</author>
	<datestamp>1266520860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Problem was that the invites came out too slowly.  People would often get an invite and have one friend that used it, while the rest of their friends didn't.</p><p>They'd stop using it, and then their friends would join it without even knowing they were a user.  I know I haven't logged into Wave in ages because no one I knew used it, and it didn't autoleverage my existing Google social networks like Buzz does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem was that the invites came out too slowly .
People would often get an invite and have one friend that used it , while the rest of their friends did n't.They 'd stop using it , and then their friends would join it without even knowing they were a user .
I know I have n't logged into Wave in ages because no one I knew used it , and it did n't autoleverage my existing Google social networks like Buzz does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem was that the invites came out too slowly.
People would often get an invite and have one friend that used it, while the rest of their friends didn't.They'd stop using it, and then their friends would join it without even knowing they were a user.
I know I haven't logged into Wave in ages because no one I knew used it, and it didn't autoleverage my existing Google social networks like Buzz does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186912</id>
	<title>End of Twitter? I don't think SO</title>
	<author>viraltus</author>
	<datestamp>1266518460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's 140 characters limit is great to avoid loads of bullshit. One of the greatest things of twitter is precisely that; it forces you to go to the point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's 140 characters limit is great to avoid loads of bullshit .
One of the greatest things of twitter is precisely that ; it forces you to go to the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's 140 characters limit is great to avoid loads of bullshit.
One of the greatest things of twitter is precisely that; it forces you to go to the point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187248</id>
	<title>The privacy problem</title>
	<author>wiredog</author>
	<datestamp>1266519960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was why I didn't use Buzz.  Made sure it was disabled as soon as I could.  I don't want some spheres of my life intersecting.</p><p> <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/12/google-buzz-privacy/" title="techcrunch.com">An example</a> [techcrunch.com] of what can go wrong, and generate big lawsuits in the process of <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=wuNImmQufGsC&amp;pg=PA119&amp;lpg=PA119&amp;dq=fail+badly+schneier+brittle+chapter+9&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=8UchmwBCeF&amp;sig=cOF1ehOiL4NLrarkwt8ZGEnQH6Y&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=xcR6S7LyFJHh8Qbyy5X0CQ&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book\_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1&amp;ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=&amp;f=false" title="google.com">failing.</a> [google.com] </p><blockquote><div><p>I use my private Gmail account to email my boyfriend and my mother.</p><p>There's a BIG drop-off between them and my other "most frequent" contacts.</p><p>You know who my third most frequent contact is?</p><p>My abusive ex-husband.</p><p>Which is why it's SO EXCITING, Google, that you AUTOMATICALLY allowed all my most frequent contacts access to my Reader, including all the comments I've made on Reader items, usually shared with my boyfriend, who I had NO REASON to hide my current location or workplace from, and never did.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was why I did n't use Buzz .
Made sure it was disabled as soon as I could .
I do n't want some spheres of my life intersecting .
An example [ techcrunch.com ] of what can go wrong , and generate big lawsuits in the process of failing .
[ google.com ] I use my private Gmail account to email my boyfriend and my mother.There 's a BIG drop-off between them and my other " most frequent " contacts.You know who my third most frequent contact is ? My abusive ex-husband.Which is why it 's SO EXCITING , Google , that you AUTOMATICALLY allowed all my most frequent contacts access to my Reader , including all the comments I 've made on Reader items , usually shared with my boyfriend , who I had NO REASON to hide my current location or workplace from , and never did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was why I didn't use Buzz.
Made sure it was disabled as soon as I could.
I don't want some spheres of my life intersecting.
An example [techcrunch.com] of what can go wrong, and generate big lawsuits in the process of failing.
[google.com] I use my private Gmail account to email my boyfriend and my mother.There's a BIG drop-off between them and my other "most frequent" contacts.You know who my third most frequent contact is?My abusive ex-husband.Which is why it's SO EXCITING, Google, that you AUTOMATICALLY allowed all my most frequent contacts access to my Reader, including all the comments I've made on Reader items, usually shared with my boyfriend, who I had NO REASON to hide my current location or workplace from, and never did.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187098</id>
	<title>Re:End of Twitter? I don't think SO</title>
	<author>jadin</author>
	<datestamp>1266519360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's 140 characters limit is great to avoid loads of bullshit. One of the greatest things of twitter is precisely that; it forces you to go</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's 140 characters limit is great to avoid loads of bullshit .
One of the greatest things of twitter is precisely that ; it forces you to go</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's 140 characters limit is great to avoid loads of bullshit.
One of the greatest things of twitter is precisely that; it forces you to go</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187004</id>
	<title>on a related note...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266518880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if you have google and youtube you might want to check your youtube privacy settings. even if you've never uploaded a video youtube automatically creates a youtube homepage for you that has a lot of information about your viewing habits. you can't get rid of the page, but you can use your privacy settings to disable the various feeds to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if you have google and youtube you might want to check your youtube privacy settings .
even if you 've never uploaded a video youtube automatically creates a youtube homepage for you that has a lot of information about your viewing habits .
you ca n't get rid of the page , but you can use your privacy settings to disable the various feeds to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you have google and youtube you might want to check your youtube privacy settings.
even if you've never uploaded a video youtube automatically creates a youtube homepage for you that has a lot of information about your viewing habits.
you can't get rid of the page, but you can use your privacy settings to disable the various feeds to it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186738</id>
	<title>The end of twitter? Hardly</title>
	<author>pmontra</author>
	<datestamp>1266517620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've got a google account for using analytics and other stuff but I'm not using it for email. That means that I seldom need to log into google and in turn that means that buzz basically doesn't exist for me. I don't think I'm alone. Furthermore I can search tweets even without logging it to twitter. That's much more convenient.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got a google account for using analytics and other stuff but I 'm not using it for email .
That means that I seldom need to log into google and in turn that means that buzz basically does n't exist for me .
I do n't think I 'm alone .
Furthermore I can search tweets even without logging it to twitter .
That 's much more convenient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got a google account for using analytics and other stuff but I'm not using it for email.
That means that I seldom need to log into google and in turn that means that buzz basically doesn't exist for me.
I don't think I'm alone.
Furthermore I can search tweets even without logging it to twitter.
That's much more convenient.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31191584</id>
	<title>Re:End of Twitter? I don't think SO</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1266489660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>LOL!</htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31191680</id>
	<title>Re:Still not quite sure why twitter is necessary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266490140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Best uses I've found for the Twitters:</p><p>1: Speed Trap updates.<br>I've seen (and made a couple of) tweets letting people know, "#MyCity #SpeedTrap on MLK btwn Nebraska, 30th St", which sometimes get Rt'd by my local news station's Twitter account. Helps to get these about 15 minutes before I leave for work, without having to sit in front of the computer for it.</p><p>2: Bargain shopping.<br>Rather than getting emailed each day, which has a tendency to be ignored for a day or twelve, I let a local service tweet their offers of the day in my general direction.<br>An example was that they were offering 2 pitas from a local pita shop for $6.50, when the normal price is between $5 and 7.50 for each one. I bought in on said deal, went into the store and asked to redeem the voucher that I printed. They walked me through their procedure, and hooked me up with a couple of pitas, all with ease.<br>Another example or two would be @MojaMix and @DellOutlet, with each offering coupons for things they sell. Saved 15\% on a refurbished netbook for my aunt recently with one of the coupons. Other than I needed to reinstall the OS a week after out of the box (I didn't get to set it up. Someone else in the family did, and that was a mess), the thing has just worked, which she appreciates, and I'm glad for.</p><p>3: Ease of access.<br>I can access the service from so many different things, it's not funny. I have a pidgin plugin for home usage. I have TinyTwitter on my 4 year old cellphone for while I'm at work or out and about. If I'm playing around on my 360, then I can tweet and read from there (hooray for USB keyboards, people). I'm sure there is a list of other things one can tweet from.<br>But in the case of the 360, I can tweet, "Hey, playing A Kingdom for Keflings for a while. Join me!", and my friends will know I'll be playing for a couple of hours. They can come home and join me in play.</p><p>I'm sure others will have better excuses than I do for microblogging.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Best uses I 've found for the Twitters : 1 : Speed Trap updates.I 've seen ( and made a couple of ) tweets letting people know , " # MyCity # SpeedTrap on MLK btwn Nebraska , 30th St " , which sometimes get Rt 'd by my local news station 's Twitter account .
Helps to get these about 15 minutes before I leave for work , without having to sit in front of the computer for it.2 : Bargain shopping.Rather than getting emailed each day , which has a tendency to be ignored for a day or twelve , I let a local service tweet their offers of the day in my general direction.An example was that they were offering 2 pitas from a local pita shop for $ 6.50 , when the normal price is between $ 5 and 7.50 for each one .
I bought in on said deal , went into the store and asked to redeem the voucher that I printed .
They walked me through their procedure , and hooked me up with a couple of pitas , all with ease.Another example or two would be @ MojaMix and @ DellOutlet , with each offering coupons for things they sell .
Saved 15 \ % on a refurbished netbook for my aunt recently with one of the coupons .
Other than I needed to reinstall the OS a week after out of the box ( I did n't get to set it up .
Someone else in the family did , and that was a mess ) , the thing has just worked , which she appreciates , and I 'm glad for.3 : Ease of access.I can access the service from so many different things , it 's not funny .
I have a pidgin plugin for home usage .
I have TinyTwitter on my 4 year old cellphone for while I 'm at work or out and about .
If I 'm playing around on my 360 , then I can tweet and read from there ( hooray for USB keyboards , people ) .
I 'm sure there is a list of other things one can tweet from.But in the case of the 360 , I can tweet , " Hey , playing A Kingdom for Keflings for a while .
Join me !
" , and my friends will know I 'll be playing for a couple of hours .
They can come home and join me in play.I 'm sure others will have better excuses than I do for microblogging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Best uses I've found for the Twitters:1: Speed Trap updates.I've seen (and made a couple of) tweets letting people know, "#MyCity #SpeedTrap on MLK btwn Nebraska, 30th St", which sometimes get Rt'd by my local news station's Twitter account.
Helps to get these about 15 minutes before I leave for work, without having to sit in front of the computer for it.2: Bargain shopping.Rather than getting emailed each day, which has a tendency to be ignored for a day or twelve, I let a local service tweet their offers of the day in my general direction.An example was that they were offering 2 pitas from a local pita shop for $6.50, when the normal price is between $5 and 7.50 for each one.
I bought in on said deal, went into the store and asked to redeem the voucher that I printed.
They walked me through their procedure, and hooked me up with a couple of pitas, all with ease.Another example or two would be @MojaMix and @DellOutlet, with each offering coupons for things they sell.
Saved 15\% on a refurbished netbook for my aunt recently with one of the coupons.
Other than I needed to reinstall the OS a week after out of the box (I didn't get to set it up.
Someone else in the family did, and that was a mess), the thing has just worked, which she appreciates, and I'm glad for.3: Ease of access.I can access the service from so many different things, it's not funny.
I have a pidgin plugin for home usage.
I have TinyTwitter on my 4 year old cellphone for while I'm at work or out and about.
If I'm playing around on my 360, then I can tweet and read from there (hooray for USB keyboards, people).
I'm sure there is a list of other things one can tweet from.But in the case of the 360, I can tweet, "Hey, playing A Kingdom for Keflings for a while.
Join me!
", and my friends will know I'll be playing for a couple of hours.
They can come home and join me in play.I'm sure others will have better excuses than I do for microblogging.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31218808</id>
	<title>Re:Still not quite sure why twitter is necessary</title>
	<author>josephcmiller2</author>
	<datestamp>1266771540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>#twitter is #awesome #dontjudgeme #imfromc i is #cool cause i read #news on #slashdot.
<br> <br>
But seriously, I was able to get news updates faster on Twitter than from CNN during the whole plane crash at IRS building incident.  But Twitter on a slow day is like listening to a bunch of kids yapping.
<br> <br>
What will be important is the search engines that can filter out all the noise to show things that are important.  I haven't seen it yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext># twitter is # awesome # dontjudgeme # imfromc i is # cool cause i read # news on # slashdot .
But seriously , I was able to get news updates faster on Twitter than from CNN during the whole plane crash at IRS building incident .
But Twitter on a slow day is like listening to a bunch of kids yapping .
What will be important is the search engines that can filter out all the noise to show things that are important .
I have n't seen it yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>#twitter is #awesome #dontjudgeme #imfromc i is #cool cause i read #news on #slashdot.
But seriously, I was able to get news updates faster on Twitter than from CNN during the whole plane crash at IRS building incident.
But Twitter on a slow day is like listening to a bunch of kids yapping.
What will be important is the search engines that can filter out all the noise to show things that are important.
I haven't seen it yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31195832</id>
	<title>Nothing to hide</title>
	<author>Mr Bubble</author>
	<datestamp>1266516300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google's CEO, Eric Schmidt, says, "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." Is he evil and stupid, or just plain stupid?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's CEO , Eric Schmidt , says , " If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't be doing it in the first place .
" Is he evil and stupid , or just plain stupid ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's CEO, Eric Schmidt, says, "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
" Is he evil and stupid, or just plain stupid?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186908</id>
	<title>Convenience is the biggest factor</title>
	<author>phormalitize</author>
	<datestamp>1266518460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The strength of buzz is it's too convenient NOT to use.  I think a lot of people prefer facebook in general, but when they've got buzz there all ready to go it's easy to just throw something out there.

It's also a solid alternative for people who for various reasons can't or don't log into facebook from work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The strength of buzz is it 's too convenient NOT to use .
I think a lot of people prefer facebook in general , but when they 've got buzz there all ready to go it 's easy to just throw something out there .
It 's also a solid alternative for people who for various reasons ca n't or do n't log into facebook from work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The strength of buzz is it's too convenient NOT to use.
I think a lot of people prefer facebook in general, but when they've got buzz there all ready to go it's easy to just throw something out there.
It's also a solid alternative for people who for various reasons can't or don't log into facebook from work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31193614</id>
	<title>Re:First!</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1266499500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening?</p><p>Plastics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to say one word to you .
Just one word .
Are you listening ? Plastics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to say one word to you.
Just one word.
Are you listening?Plastics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187134</id>
	<title>Re:End of Twitter? I don't think SO</title>
	<author>lochnessie</author>
	<datestamp>1266519540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>from most of the tweets I've seen, 140 characters is plenty of room for bullshit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>from most of the tweets I 've seen , 140 characters is plenty of room for bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from most of the tweets I've seen, 140 characters is plenty of room for bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187988</id>
	<title>Re:Still not quite sure why twitter is necessary</title>
	<author>dfxm</author>
	<datestamp>1266522180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What exactly is twitter doing that couldn't be done with existing blogging sites that have email updates? </p></div><p>You can send and receive Tweets from your (non-smart) phone without needing a data plan. <br> <br>That's why Twitter has the character limit (it is the same limit for SMS messages). That's why people started using and continue to use Twitter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly is twitter doing that could n't be done with existing blogging sites that have email updates ?
You can send and receive Tweets from your ( non-smart ) phone without needing a data plan .
That 's why Twitter has the character limit ( it is the same limit for SMS messages ) .
That 's why people started using and continue to use Twitter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly is twitter doing that couldn't be done with existing blogging sites that have email updates?
You can send and receive Tweets from your (non-smart) phone without needing a data plan.
That's why Twitter has the character limit (it is the same limit for SMS messages).
That's why people started using and continue to use Twitter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31192316</id>
	<title>Re:things holding back buzz</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1266493020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>buzz has a userbase<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/ceiling/: the number of gmail users; the userbase may be large but it's closed and entry is a large hurdle for many</p></div></blockquote><p>This is a ceiling for the Buzz <i>application</i>, but not so much for the underlying social network; since Buzz uses open protocols (and especially if Google rolls out the richer set of open-protocol interfaces they've said they plan to), "who Buzz users can connect to with Buzz" is a much bigger universe than "who actually uses Buzz".</p><p>I think Google likely sees Buzz and its related open protocols (PubSubHubbub et al.) as a hammer to break open social networking walled gardens (giving Google more stuff to index, search, and provide access to and ads along side through various different interfaces), rather than seeing the Buzz application itself as something they particularly care about making dominant.</p><p>The same way Chrome is a tool to push adoption of HTML5 and other related web technologies, Buzz is a tool to push adoption</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>buzz has a userbase /ceiling/ : the number of gmail users ; the userbase may be large but it 's closed and entry is a large hurdle for manyThis is a ceiling for the Buzz application , but not so much for the underlying social network ; since Buzz uses open protocols ( and especially if Google rolls out the richer set of open-protocol interfaces they 've said they plan to ) , " who Buzz users can connect to with Buzz " is a much bigger universe than " who actually uses Buzz " .I think Google likely sees Buzz and its related open protocols ( PubSubHubbub et al .
) as a hammer to break open social networking walled gardens ( giving Google more stuff to index , search , and provide access to and ads along side through various different interfaces ) , rather than seeing the Buzz application itself as something they particularly care about making dominant.The same way Chrome is a tool to push adoption of HTML5 and other related web technologies , Buzz is a tool to push adoption</tokentext>
<sentencetext>buzz has a userbase /ceiling/: the number of gmail users; the userbase may be large but it's closed and entry is a large hurdle for manyThis is a ceiling for the Buzz application, but not so much for the underlying social network; since Buzz uses open protocols (and especially if Google rolls out the richer set of open-protocol interfaces they've said they plan to), "who Buzz users can connect to with Buzz" is a much bigger universe than "who actually uses Buzz".I think Google likely sees Buzz and its related open protocols (PubSubHubbub et al.
) as a hammer to break open social networking walled gardens (giving Google more stuff to index, search, and provide access to and ads along side through various different interfaces), rather than seeing the Buzz application itself as something they particularly care about making dominant.The same way Chrome is a tool to push adoption of HTML5 and other related web technologies, Buzz is a tool to push adoption
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187124</id>
	<title>Re:End of Twitter? I don't think SO</title>
	<author>megamerican</author>
	<datestamp>1266519480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is that new edition of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak" title="wikipedia.org">Newspeak</a> [wikipedia.org] coming along?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is that new edition of Newspeak [ wikipedia.org ] coming along ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is that new edition of Newspeak [wikipedia.org] coming along?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187300</id>
	<title>End of Twitter?</title>
	<author>Ray</author>
	<datestamp>1266520140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We can only hope.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We can only hope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can only hope.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31188590</id>
	<title>Blocking doesn't work correctly</title>
	<author>ClintJCL</author>
	<datestamp>1266524100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I blocked a douchebag I know. I don't see his posts, due to the block, but he still gets to harass me via friends' buzz postings. Apparently the only way to not be harassed is to not use Buzz.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I blocked a douchebag I know .
I do n't see his posts , due to the block , but he still gets to harass me via friends ' buzz postings .
Apparently the only way to not be harassed is to not use Buzz .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I blocked a douchebag I know.
I don't see his posts, due to the block, but he still gets to harass me via friends' buzz postings.
Apparently the only way to not be harassed is to not use Buzz.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31188184</id>
	<title>Re:The privacy problem</title>
	<author>A coward on a mouse</author>
	<datestamp>1266522960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps to handle shared business, like the kids, the divorce settlement, etc., etc.? Perhaps because she interacted with him so much before he was her ex-husband that he's still one of her top three most contacted contacts, and she can't or hasn't yet cut all contact with him due to remaining shared business? Also, abusive much yourself? Why in the hell would you feel a need to resort to such offensive characterizations?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps to handle shared business , like the kids , the divorce settlement , etc. , etc. ?
Perhaps because she interacted with him so much before he was her ex-husband that he 's still one of her top three most contacted contacts , and she ca n't or has n't yet cut all contact with him due to remaining shared business ?
Also , abusive much yourself ?
Why in the hell would you feel a need to resort to such offensive characterizations ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps to handle shared business, like the kids, the divorce settlement, etc., etc.?
Perhaps because she interacted with him so much before he was her ex-husband that he's still one of her top three most contacted contacts, and she can't or hasn't yet cut all contact with him due to remaining shared business?
Also, abusive much yourself?
Why in the hell would you feel a need to resort to such offensive characterizations?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186858</id>
	<title>Re:End of twitter? not likely...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266518220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And all Google has to do is create a unique Buzz email address to send updates to (like Facebook has recently done), and you get instant support on any platform capable of sending email.</p><p>When Facebook came out with the unique email address to upload images and update status, I dumped my Blackberry Facebook app and I just use email now.  So at this point, switching to Buzz would be a matter of changing the email address my pictures and updates go to.</p><p>This would make new Buzz apps for platforms trivial to implement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And all Google has to do is create a unique Buzz email address to send updates to ( like Facebook has recently done ) , and you get instant support on any platform capable of sending email.When Facebook came out with the unique email address to upload images and update status , I dumped my Blackberry Facebook app and I just use email now .
So at this point , switching to Buzz would be a matter of changing the email address my pictures and updates go to.This would make new Buzz apps for platforms trivial to implement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And all Google has to do is create a unique Buzz email address to send updates to (like Facebook has recently done), and you get instant support on any platform capable of sending email.When Facebook came out with the unique email address to upload images and update status, I dumped my Blackberry Facebook app and I just use email now.
So at this point, switching to Buzz would be a matter of changing the email address my pictures and updates go to.This would make new Buzz apps for platforms trivial to implement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31191494</id>
	<title>Re:The privacy problem</title>
	<author>bloobloo</author>
	<datestamp>1266489360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because he became abusive after she had his email address in her contacts? And she didn't foresee needing to delete because of google's innovation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because he became abusive after she had his email address in her contacts ?
And she did n't foresee needing to delete because of google 's innovation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because he became abusive after she had his email address in her contacts?
And she didn't foresee needing to delete because of google's innovation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31188256</id>
	<title>+1 Funny Please</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1266523200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shit, i just ran out of mod points.</p><p>Great SNL reference!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shit , i just ran out of mod points.Great SNL reference !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shit, i just ran out of mod points.Great SNL reference!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187194</id>
	<title>Do No [intentional] Harm--NPD walks the line</title>
	<author>jnull</author>
	<datestamp>1266519780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From a go-to-market POV, getting "buzz" and an initial user-base is the most difficult part of social network-based apps. To the old adage: ask for forgiveness, not permission. Personally, I think it is just fun for people to hate on Google (the big institution)... heck the Avant-garde of hatin' big business is even hatin' on Apple! Now that I just find funny... reminds me of that South Park "Smug" episode. I digress. Google will always struggle with using its data and users to its advantage without losing them.

To Google or any other company (Slashdot included), we're all just data points. There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those who get that and those who don't.

--</htmltext>
<tokenext>From a go-to-market POV , getting " buzz " and an initial user-base is the most difficult part of social network-based apps .
To the old adage : ask for forgiveness , not permission .
Personally , I think it is just fun for people to hate on Google ( the big institution ) ... heck the Avant-garde of hatin ' big business is even hatin ' on Apple !
Now that I just find funny... reminds me of that South Park " Smug " episode .
I digress .
Google will always struggle with using its data and users to its advantage without losing them .
To Google or any other company ( Slashdot included ) , we 're all just data points .
There are 10 kinds of people in this world ; those who get that and those who do n't .
--</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a go-to-market POV, getting "buzz" and an initial user-base is the most difficult part of social network-based apps.
To the old adage: ask for forgiveness, not permission.
Personally, I think it is just fun for people to hate on Google (the big institution)... heck the Avant-garde of hatin' big business is even hatin' on Apple!
Now that I just find funny... reminds me of that South Park "Smug" episode.
I digress.
Google will always struggle with using its data and users to its advantage without losing them.
To Google or any other company (Slashdot included), we're all just data points.
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those who get that and those who don't.
--</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187376</id>
	<title>Re:First!</title>
	<author>AshtangiMan</author>
	<datestamp>1266520380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Volume.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Volume .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Volume.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186648</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31196954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31218808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31202556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31195832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31200970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31188256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31191070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31191584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31188458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31210226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31188184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31191494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31189538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31191628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31192384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31192642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31193480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31190226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31188140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31210870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31188840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31191224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31192102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31192316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31193998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31199168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31193614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31190088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31191680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_18_1716211_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31193546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1716211.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186738
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1716211.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31189538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31191224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31188140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31188458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1716211.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1716211.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31199168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31191584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1716211.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1716211.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31188188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1716211.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31218808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31190088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31190226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31188840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31191680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1716211.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1716211.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31210870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1716211.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1716211.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31188410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1716211.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31195832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31202556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1716211.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31188528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1716211.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31193998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31210226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31191070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31192384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31192642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31193480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31192102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187512
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31196954
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1716211.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31188256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31193614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31191628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1716211.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31188184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31191494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31193546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31200970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1716211.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31187802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_18_1716211.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31186946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_18_1716211.31192316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
