<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_03_1026238</id>
	<title>BBC To Make Deep Cuts In Internet Services</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1267615860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"The NY Times reports that the BBC has yielded to critics of its aggressive expansion, and is planning to make <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/business/media/03bbc.html">sweeping cuts in spending on its Web site and other digital operations</a>. Members of the Conservative Party, which is expected to make electoral gains at the expense of the governing Labor Party, have called for the BBC to be reined in and last year <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/08/29/1750259/James-Murdoch-Criticizes-BBC-For-Providing-Free-News">James Murdoch criticized the BBC for providing 'free news' on the internet</a>, making it 'incredibly hard for private news organizations to ask people to pay for their news.'  Mark Thompson, director-general of the BBC, said 'After years of expansion of our services in the UK, we are proposing some reductions.' The BBC is proposing a 25 percent reduction in its spending on the Web, as well as the closure of several digital radio stations and a reduction in outlays on US television shows. The Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union, which represents thousands of workers at the BBC, says that <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/7352167/BBC-staff-revolt-after-spending-cuts-announced.html">instead of appeasing critics, the proposed cuts could backfire</a>. 'The BBC will not secure the politicians' favor with these proposals and nor will the corporation appease the commercial sector, which will see what the BBC is prepared to sacrifice and will pile on the pressure for more cuts,' says Gerry Morrissey, general secretary of the union."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " The NY Times reports that the BBC has yielded to critics of its aggressive expansion , and is planning to make sweeping cuts in spending on its Web site and other digital operations .
Members of the Conservative Party , which is expected to make electoral gains at the expense of the governing Labor Party , have called for the BBC to be reined in and last year James Murdoch criticized the BBC for providing 'free news ' on the internet , making it 'incredibly hard for private news organizations to ask people to pay for their news .
' Mark Thompson , director-general of the BBC , said 'After years of expansion of our services in the UK , we are proposing some reductions .
' The BBC is proposing a 25 percent reduction in its spending on the Web , as well as the closure of several digital radio stations and a reduction in outlays on US television shows .
The Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union , which represents thousands of workers at the BBC , says that instead of appeasing critics , the proposed cuts could backfire .
'The BBC will not secure the politicians ' favor with these proposals and nor will the corporation appease the commercial sector , which will see what the BBC is prepared to sacrifice and will pile on the pressure for more cuts, ' says Gerry Morrissey , general secretary of the union .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that the BBC has yielded to critics of its aggressive expansion, and is planning to make sweeping cuts in spending on its Web site and other digital operations.
Members of the Conservative Party, which is expected to make electoral gains at the expense of the governing Labor Party, have called for the BBC to be reined in and last year James Murdoch criticized the BBC for providing 'free news' on the internet, making it 'incredibly hard for private news organizations to ask people to pay for their news.
'  Mark Thompson, director-general of the BBC, said 'After years of expansion of our services in the UK, we are proposing some reductions.
' The BBC is proposing a 25 percent reduction in its spending on the Web, as well as the closure of several digital radio stations and a reduction in outlays on US television shows.
The Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union, which represents thousands of workers at the BBC, says that instead of appeasing critics, the proposed cuts could backfire.
'The BBC will not secure the politicians' favor with these proposals and nor will the corporation appease the commercial sector, which will see what the BBC is prepared to sacrifice and will pile on the pressure for more cuts,' says Gerry Morrissey, general secretary of the union.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343332</id>
	<title>Stupidest move, ever</title>
	<author>A beautiful mind</author>
	<datestamp>1267620060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The BBC has a pretty good web presence. I certainly prefer BBC News, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi" title="bbc.co.uk">Democracy Live</a> [bbc.co.uk] and the other services they provide to anything that is tainted by Rupert Murdoch. Just because Murdoch doesn't understand the web and has no sense to realise that, quality news sources like the BBC shouldn't just provide a more shitty service to make Murdoch lose less money.<br> <br>
In this case, a public service is providing great service and if you can't compete with that, instead of whining maybe you should go bankrupt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC has a pretty good web presence .
I certainly prefer BBC News , Democracy Live [ bbc.co.uk ] and the other services they provide to anything that is tainted by Rupert Murdoch .
Just because Murdoch does n't understand the web and has no sense to realise that , quality news sources like the BBC should n't just provide a more shitty service to make Murdoch lose less money .
In this case , a public service is providing great service and if you ca n't compete with that , instead of whining maybe you should go bankrupt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC has a pretty good web presence.
I certainly prefer BBC News, Democracy Live [bbc.co.uk] and the other services they provide to anything that is tainted by Rupert Murdoch.
Just because Murdoch doesn't understand the web and has no sense to realise that, quality news sources like the BBC shouldn't just provide a more shitty service to make Murdoch lose less money.
In this case, a public service is providing great service and if you can't compete with that, instead of whining maybe you should go bankrupt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31347150</id>
	<title>I'm American and I'll pay for BBC content</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267638660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In fact in many cases, I already do.  F-ing send me a tax form and get rid of the annoying blocks for me on all your web content.  Don't cut your services, my goodness Primeval showed that writers can do a decent story, compared to those Lost writers (didn't watch past season 2) who're sellouts.  That's just one show, but web content, etc., you are proof that the rest of the world is falling down on the job.  Murdoch hates you because you show what a scam his entire business is!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact in many cases , I already do .
F-ing send me a tax form and get rid of the annoying blocks for me on all your web content .
Do n't cut your services , my goodness Primeval showed that writers can do a decent story , compared to those Lost writers ( did n't watch past season 2 ) who 're sellouts .
That 's just one show , but web content , etc. , you are proof that the rest of the world is falling down on the job .
Murdoch hates you because you show what a scam his entire business is !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact in many cases, I already do.
F-ing send me a tax form and get rid of the annoying blocks for me on all your web content.
Don't cut your services, my goodness Primeval showed that writers can do a decent story, compared to those Lost writers (didn't watch past season 2) who're sellouts.
That's just one show, but web content, etc., you are proof that the rest of the world is falling down on the job.
Murdoch hates you because you show what a scam his entire business is!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343444</id>
	<title>But i pay for my bbc news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267620960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I pay my licence fee, aka subscription, for the BBC. I get my news from the BBC website. I do not want to pay Murdoch for his news as his news is rubbish. i think it is totally wrong to try to restrain the BBC. Especially on  the internet where the future is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I pay my licence fee , aka subscription , for the BBC .
I get my news from the BBC website .
I do not want to pay Murdoch for his news as his news is rubbish .
i think it is totally wrong to try to restrain the BBC .
Especially on the internet where the future is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I pay my licence fee, aka subscription, for the BBC.
I get my news from the BBC website.
I do not want to pay Murdoch for his news as his news is rubbish.
i think it is totally wrong to try to restrain the BBC.
Especially on  the internet where the future is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344600</id>
	<title>The BBC should tell Murdoch and others to go jump</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1267627680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BBC should tell Murdoch and others to go jump. Unless something has changed recently, the BBC is funded largely by the license holders and has no obligation to Murdoch/News or any other "news" organization.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC should tell Murdoch and others to go jump .
Unless something has changed recently , the BBC is funded largely by the license holders and has no obligation to Murdoch/News or any other " news " organization .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC should tell Murdoch and others to go jump.
Unless something has changed recently, the BBC is funded largely by the license holders and has no obligation to Murdoch/News or any other "news" organization.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343434</id>
	<title>Great opportunity to drop obsolete technology.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267620840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DRM bye bye?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DRM bye bye ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DRM bye bye?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344018</id>
	<title>Amen and</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1267624560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even though they list the older seasons in their catalog, they are <b>never</b> available through Netflix.  What, do they only have one copy of each?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though they list the older seasons in their catalog , they are never available through Netflix .
What , do they only have one copy of each ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though they list the older seasons in their catalog, they are never available through Netflix.
What, do they only have one copy of each?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31351162</id>
	<title>Re:Ditch the super-stars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267614300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Holy fuck, 18 million pounds per year? He's not even worth 500,000. Fuck me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy fuck , 18 million pounds per year ?
He 's not even worth 500,000 .
Fuck me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy fuck, 18 million pounds per year?
He's not even worth 500,000.
Fuck me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343490</id>
	<title>Silly Brits</title>
	<author>popo</author>
	<datestamp>1267621200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What part of "bread and circuses" do they not understand.  Cutting pensions and television at the same time, well that's the bread AND the circus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What part of " bread and circuses " do they not understand .
Cutting pensions and television at the same time , well that 's the bread AND the circus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What part of "bread and circuses" do they not understand.
Cutting pensions and television at the same time, well that's the bread AND the circus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343714</id>
	<title>The BBC is NOT "free news".</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1267622580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People pay for it trough their taxes. It&rsquo;s the nation&rsquo;s homegrown/self-owned news service.<br>Murdoch is just a greedy dick who &ldquo;invests&rdquo; in political party sock puppets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People pay for it trough their taxes .
It    s the nation    s homegrown/self-owned news service.Murdoch is just a greedy dick who    invests    in political party sock puppets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People pay for it trough their taxes.
It’s the nation’s homegrown/self-owned news service.Murdoch is just a greedy dick who “invests” in political party sock puppets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31366670</id>
	<title>Four words for Murdoch:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267719960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck off and die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck off and die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck off and die.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343398</id>
	<title>this has been and will continue to be done wrong</title>
	<author>FuckingNickName</author>
	<datestamp>1267620540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(1) I applaud the decision to reduce expenditure on US television shows. Some of them are brilliant, but it is not really the BBC's place to broadcast them.</p><p>(2) The BBC needs to go back to a principle of quality over quantity. Output from such channels as BBC Three would not pass for a mediocre school production. "Hole in the Wall" might not pretend to be anything but light entertainment, but it is not adding to the knowledge or the culture of Britain. Digital radio is in general a failure, and it is good that they have tacitly acknowledged this. Meanwhile, the BBC News Internet site is excellent, and should not be the first choice for cuts despite evident political pressure for those who do not like the balance provided by the BBC.</p><p>(3) The BBC needs to stop privatising or outsourcing its research and development, so it can go back to long-term efforts in improving the state-of-the-art in broadcasting. It needs to go back to a technical-driven culture: for example, it needs to cooperate in efforts to prevent pollution to the shortwave spectrum, and it needs to reverse all efforts to introduce Digital Restrictions Management. We've already paid for what you produce, and you are our public broadcasting service: you don't get to dictate how we enjoy your productions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( 1 ) I applaud the decision to reduce expenditure on US television shows .
Some of them are brilliant , but it is not really the BBC 's place to broadcast them .
( 2 ) The BBC needs to go back to a principle of quality over quantity .
Output from such channels as BBC Three would not pass for a mediocre school production .
" Hole in the Wall " might not pretend to be anything but light entertainment , but it is not adding to the knowledge or the culture of Britain .
Digital radio is in general a failure , and it is good that they have tacitly acknowledged this .
Meanwhile , the BBC News Internet site is excellent , and should not be the first choice for cuts despite evident political pressure for those who do not like the balance provided by the BBC .
( 3 ) The BBC needs to stop privatising or outsourcing its research and development , so it can go back to long-term efforts in improving the state-of-the-art in broadcasting .
It needs to go back to a technical-driven culture : for example , it needs to cooperate in efforts to prevent pollution to the shortwave spectrum , and it needs to reverse all efforts to introduce Digital Restrictions Management .
We 've already paid for what you produce , and you are our public broadcasting service : you do n't get to dictate how we enjoy your productions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(1) I applaud the decision to reduce expenditure on US television shows.
Some of them are brilliant, but it is not really the BBC's place to broadcast them.
(2) The BBC needs to go back to a principle of quality over quantity.
Output from such channels as BBC Three would not pass for a mediocre school production.
"Hole in the Wall" might not pretend to be anything but light entertainment, but it is not adding to the knowledge or the culture of Britain.
Digital radio is in general a failure, and it is good that they have tacitly acknowledged this.
Meanwhile, the BBC News Internet site is excellent, and should not be the first choice for cuts despite evident political pressure for those who do not like the balance provided by the BBC.
(3) The BBC needs to stop privatising or outsourcing its research and development, so it can go back to long-term efforts in improving the state-of-the-art in broadcasting.
It needs to go back to a technical-driven culture: for example, it needs to cooperate in efforts to prevent pollution to the shortwave spectrum, and it needs to reverse all efforts to introduce Digital Restrictions Management.
We've already paid for what you produce, and you are our public broadcasting service: you don't get to dictate how we enjoy your productions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31347866</id>
	<title>Hat's off to the Beeb!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267641900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here in the states, the BBC World News is by far the most objective and balanced reporting available. They even do a good job of covering US politics, whereas the US based news organizations appear to assume their listeners want to remain blissfully ignorant to what is going on in the rest of the world. Hell, even Al Jazeera has better journalism standards than most US News organizations. Is James Murdoch any relation to Rupert Murdoch? They both appear to have a business model based on whining that their customers aren't paying enough for their product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in the states , the BBC World News is by far the most objective and balanced reporting available .
They even do a good job of covering US politics , whereas the US based news organizations appear to assume their listeners want to remain blissfully ignorant to what is going on in the rest of the world .
Hell , even Al Jazeera has better journalism standards than most US News organizations .
Is James Murdoch any relation to Rupert Murdoch ?
They both appear to have a business model based on whining that their customers are n't paying enough for their product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in the states, the BBC World News is by far the most objective and balanced reporting available.
They even do a good job of covering US politics, whereas the US based news organizations appear to assume their listeners want to remain blissfully ignorant to what is going on in the rest of the world.
Hell, even Al Jazeera has better journalism standards than most US News organizations.
Is James Murdoch any relation to Rupert Murdoch?
They both appear to have a business model based on whining that their customers aren't paying enough for their product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344174</id>
	<title>Drop proprietary video?</title>
	<author>SEWilco</author>
	<datestamp>1267625580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They could save on bandwidth by replacing their restrictive video feeds with torrent servers, and live feeds with streaming torrents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They could save on bandwidth by replacing their restrictive video feeds with torrent servers , and live feeds with streaming torrents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could save on bandwidth by replacing their restrictive video feeds with torrent servers, and live feeds with streaming torrents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343374</id>
	<title>I will happily give BBC more of my money...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267620420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they would just start selling full episodes of Top Gear (amongst others) over here in the states.  My British counterparts get to see full one-hour episodes of Top Gear when they are in the UK.  But here in the US I cannot have that from the BBC, for any amount of money.  BBC America shows me the butchered 40-minute episodes.  Sure, I can accept that they need to sell advertising space here.  But why can't they sell the full episodes on DVD here?  If I buy the BBC America DVDs I get the same 40-minute episodes that they show on TV here.  And BBC UK won't sell me the regular DVDs - they are region encoded (and PAL) but that doesn't matter since they won't sell them to me anyways.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they would just start selling full episodes of Top Gear ( amongst others ) over here in the states .
My British counterparts get to see full one-hour episodes of Top Gear when they are in the UK .
But here in the US I can not have that from the BBC , for any amount of money .
BBC America shows me the butchered 40-minute episodes .
Sure , I can accept that they need to sell advertising space here .
But why ca n't they sell the full episodes on DVD here ?
If I buy the BBC America DVDs I get the same 40-minute episodes that they show on TV here .
And BBC UK wo n't sell me the regular DVDs - they are region encoded ( and PAL ) but that does n't matter since they wo n't sell them to me anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they would just start selling full episodes of Top Gear (amongst others) over here in the states.
My British counterparts get to see full one-hour episodes of Top Gear when they are in the UK.
But here in the US I cannot have that from the BBC, for any amount of money.
BBC America shows me the butchered 40-minute episodes.
Sure, I can accept that they need to sell advertising space here.
But why can't they sell the full episodes on DVD here?
If I buy the BBC America DVDs I get the same 40-minute episodes that they show on TV here.
And BBC UK won't sell me the regular DVDs - they are region encoded (and PAL) but that doesn't matter since they won't sell them to me anyways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344344</id>
	<title>Re:drop proprietary software?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267626420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>flash-based, linux-unfriendly, iPlayer</p></div></blockquote><p>
Works perfectly on my machine. In fact iPlayer works far better than most other web based players.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>flash-based , linux-unfriendly , iPlayer Works perfectly on my machine .
In fact iPlayer works far better than most other web based players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>flash-based, linux-unfriendly, iPlayer
Works perfectly on my machine.
In fact iPlayer works far better than most other web based players.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31346438</id>
	<title>Re:whence cometh this God-given right to make us p</title>
	<author>BeanThere</author>
	<datestamp>1267635780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So where does Murdoch's mythical right to extract money from the public come from?</p></div><p>But that is *exactly* what the BBC does - extract money from the public to provide the service. Why is it somehow "better" for goverment to do this (taking your money by force, I should add) than a private individual (voluntarily)? I know it's fashionable to bash "evil" big businesses, but really, you think government is more your friend?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So where does Murdoch 's mythical right to extract money from the public come from ? But that is * exactly * what the BBC does - extract money from the public to provide the service .
Why is it somehow " better " for goverment to do this ( taking your money by force , I should add ) than a private individual ( voluntarily ) ?
I know it 's fashionable to bash " evil " big businesses , but really , you think government is more your friend ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So where does Murdoch's mythical right to extract money from the public come from?But that is *exactly* what the BBC does - extract money from the public to provide the service.
Why is it somehow "better" for goverment to do this (taking your money by force, I should add) than a private individual (voluntarily)?
I know it's fashionable to bash "evil" big businesses, but really, you think government is more your friend?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31362174</id>
	<title>Re:News on the BBC is not free (if you live in UK)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267695120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The BBC is not free of bias either.  Many of its stories are Labour-loving and liberal biased.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC is not free of bias either .
Many of its stories are Labour-loving and liberal biased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC is not free of bias either.
Many of its stories are Labour-loving and liberal biased.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344348</id>
	<title>Re:Fuck you Rupert</title>
	<author>WesternActor</author>
	<datestamp>1267626480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not trying to argue here, I'm honestly curious.  If something is "state-sponsored," as you say, how can it also be "independent"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not trying to argue here , I 'm honestly curious .
If something is " state-sponsored , " as you say , how can it also be " independent " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not trying to argue here, I'm honestly curious.
If something is "state-sponsored," as you say, how can it also be "independent"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344492</id>
	<title>BRITISH broadcasting corporation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267627140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trouble with the BBC is that they are so busy trying to be all thing to everyone in the world that they forgot who it was paying their bills.  Quite regularly programs that read letters from viewers/listeners will read one form someone in a foreign country.  How much they love the program and the BBC, even though the podcast/iplayer is totally free to them.  Why should we pay for a web site when (statisticly) more people in the rest of the world are going to view it than there are people at home.  Don't even get me started on the various "local" international BBC stations.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I love the BBC.  Subscription TV is the way to go be it BBC or HBO oe whoever.  I would even pay to watch ITV if it meant no adverts and no lowest common denominator programming.  People seem to think it is wrong though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trouble with the BBC is that they are so busy trying to be all thing to everyone in the world that they forgot who it was paying their bills .
Quite regularly programs that read letters from viewers/listeners will read one form someone in a foreign country .
How much they love the program and the BBC , even though the podcast/iplayer is totally free to them .
Why should we pay for a web site when ( statisticly ) more people in the rest of the world are going to view it than there are people at home .
Do n't even get me started on the various " local " international BBC stations.Do n't get me wrong , I love the BBC .
Subscription TV is the way to go be it BBC or HBO oe whoever .
I would even pay to watch ITV if it meant no adverts and no lowest common denominator programming .
People seem to think it is wrong though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trouble with the BBC is that they are so busy trying to be all thing to everyone in the world that they forgot who it was paying their bills.
Quite regularly programs that read letters from viewers/listeners will read one form someone in a foreign country.
How much they love the program and the BBC, even though the podcast/iplayer is totally free to them.
Why should we pay for a web site when (statisticly) more people in the rest of the world are going to view it than there are people at home.
Don't even get me started on the various "local" international BBC stations.Don't get me wrong, I love the BBC.
Subscription TV is the way to go be it BBC or HBO oe whoever.
I would even pay to watch ITV if it meant no adverts and no lowest common denominator programming.
People seem to think it is wrong though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31346288</id>
	<title>Re:this has been and will continue to be done wron</title>
	<author>Angostura</author>
	<datestamp>1267635120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BBC is patchy - but that's its remit - to be allowed to experiment and be hit-or-miss. Some of its output is excellent. I would cite <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/beinghuman/" title="bbc.co.uk">Being Human</a> [bbc.co.uk] as an example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BBC is patchy - but that 's its remit - to be allowed to experiment and be hit-or-miss .
Some of its output is excellent .
I would cite Being Human [ bbc.co.uk ] as an example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BBC is patchy - but that's its remit - to be allowed to experiment and be hit-or-miss.
Some of its output is excellent.
I would cite Being Human [bbc.co.uk] as an example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31345714</id>
	<title>Re:this has been and will continue to be done wron</title>
	<author>makomk</author>
	<datestamp>1267632600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The BBC needs to stop privatising or outsourcing its research and development, so it can go back to long-term efforts in improving the state-of-the-art in broadcasting.</p></div><p>Unfortunately, the reason for this seems to be political as much as anything - the BBC doesn't dare to be seen competing with the private sector too much, and in fact is required not to do so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC needs to stop privatising or outsourcing its research and development , so it can go back to long-term efforts in improving the state-of-the-art in broadcasting.Unfortunately , the reason for this seems to be political as much as anything - the BBC does n't dare to be seen competing with the private sector too much , and in fact is required not to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC needs to stop privatising or outsourcing its research and development, so it can go back to long-term efforts in improving the state-of-the-art in broadcasting.Unfortunately, the reason for this seems to be political as much as anything - the BBC doesn't dare to be seen competing with the private sector too much, and in fact is required not to do so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343684</id>
	<title>smoke and mirrors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267622460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These cuts are nothing more than looking to be doing something, while actually not doing much. They are simply trimming back some of the dead wood.<br> <br>

However, in doing so they are completely missing the point of their remit. They are supposed to produce high-quality programming, and that includes minority programming that commercial broadcasters wouldn't, or couldn't, touch. Radio 6 completely falls within this remit -- Radio 1 however, most surely does not. Radio 1 is a commercial channel, in everything but name. Sure, there's no overt adverts on it, but there's plenty of covert ones -- not the least of which is the music itself, all commercial products, and products from a very evil industry. Radio 6 played music from unsigned bands, so I guess there's not so much payola, hence it's the channel that's cut.<br> <br>

BBC3 and BBC4 are worthless channels and could go easily. BBC3 is braindead crap. It's targeted at a youth audience for purely commercial reasons -- and to add insult to injury, most of the youths watching it do not even pay the TV licence.<br> <br>

BBC4 contains programmes that would have naturally been on BBC2. When 4 was created they harvested off the (slightly more) intelligent shows, and filled the gaps in the BBC2 schedule with reality crap, make-over shows, cooking shows, antiques shows -- all riddled with product placement, which they can get away with as it's independent producers that are getting the kick-backs from promoting the products.<br> <br>

BBC News is the largest news organization in the world. Ignoring its inherent government progaganda and bias for the moment, for all the journalists it employs, for all the offices all over the world, it very, very, very rarely ever breaks an exclusive story. Much of the news is regurgitated press releases -- as well as again, lots of product placement. Usually, any exclusive stories come from the result of documentary researchers working for shows such as Panorama, and not from the news dept.<br> <br>

The BBC's new multi-million Pacific Quay HQ is state-of-the-art, with all the latest tech and a fantastic studio. But all it does is host tabloid-style regional news, cheap game show "The Weakest Link", and a few other unscripted talent and variety shows.<br> <br>

The quality of the BBC's production crew seems to have diminished dramatically over the past few years. There's barely a single show that has a camera set at the correct exposure. The editing is universally horrific across all BBC shows.<br> <br>

It's a vastly bloated, and increasingly dumbed-down organization. The name "Mark Thompson" seems only to be synonymous with failure, he's inexpertly presided over the worst period in the corporation's history. These cuts are superficial, there's considerably more changes need to be made to improve the quality of the BBC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These cuts are nothing more than looking to be doing something , while actually not doing much .
They are simply trimming back some of the dead wood .
However , in doing so they are completely missing the point of their remit .
They are supposed to produce high-quality programming , and that includes minority programming that commercial broadcasters would n't , or could n't , touch .
Radio 6 completely falls within this remit -- Radio 1 however , most surely does not .
Radio 1 is a commercial channel , in everything but name .
Sure , there 's no overt adverts on it , but there 's plenty of covert ones -- not the least of which is the music itself , all commercial products , and products from a very evil industry .
Radio 6 played music from unsigned bands , so I guess there 's not so much payola , hence it 's the channel that 's cut .
BBC3 and BBC4 are worthless channels and could go easily .
BBC3 is braindead crap .
It 's targeted at a youth audience for purely commercial reasons -- and to add insult to injury , most of the youths watching it do not even pay the TV licence .
BBC4 contains programmes that would have naturally been on BBC2 .
When 4 was created they harvested off the ( slightly more ) intelligent shows , and filled the gaps in the BBC2 schedule with reality crap , make-over shows , cooking shows , antiques shows -- all riddled with product placement , which they can get away with as it 's independent producers that are getting the kick-backs from promoting the products .
BBC News is the largest news organization in the world .
Ignoring its inherent government progaganda and bias for the moment , for all the journalists it employs , for all the offices all over the world , it very , very , very rarely ever breaks an exclusive story .
Much of the news is regurgitated press releases -- as well as again , lots of product placement .
Usually , any exclusive stories come from the result of documentary researchers working for shows such as Panorama , and not from the news dept .
The BBC 's new multi-million Pacific Quay HQ is state-of-the-art , with all the latest tech and a fantastic studio .
But all it does is host tabloid-style regional news , cheap game show " The Weakest Link " , and a few other unscripted talent and variety shows .
The quality of the BBC 's production crew seems to have diminished dramatically over the past few years .
There 's barely a single show that has a camera set at the correct exposure .
The editing is universally horrific across all BBC shows .
It 's a vastly bloated , and increasingly dumbed-down organization .
The name " Mark Thompson " seems only to be synonymous with failure , he 's inexpertly presided over the worst period in the corporation 's history .
These cuts are superficial , there 's considerably more changes need to be made to improve the quality of the BBC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These cuts are nothing more than looking to be doing something, while actually not doing much.
They are simply trimming back some of the dead wood.
However, in doing so they are completely missing the point of their remit.
They are supposed to produce high-quality programming, and that includes minority programming that commercial broadcasters wouldn't, or couldn't, touch.
Radio 6 completely falls within this remit -- Radio 1 however, most surely does not.
Radio 1 is a commercial channel, in everything but name.
Sure, there's no overt adverts on it, but there's plenty of covert ones -- not the least of which is the music itself, all commercial products, and products from a very evil industry.
Radio 6 played music from unsigned bands, so I guess there's not so much payola, hence it's the channel that's cut.
BBC3 and BBC4 are worthless channels and could go easily.
BBC3 is braindead crap.
It's targeted at a youth audience for purely commercial reasons -- and to add insult to injury, most of the youths watching it do not even pay the TV licence.
BBC4 contains programmes that would have naturally been on BBC2.
When 4 was created they harvested off the (slightly more) intelligent shows, and filled the gaps in the BBC2 schedule with reality crap, make-over shows, cooking shows, antiques shows -- all riddled with product placement, which they can get away with as it's independent producers that are getting the kick-backs from promoting the products.
BBC News is the largest news organization in the world.
Ignoring its inherent government progaganda and bias for the moment, for all the journalists it employs, for all the offices all over the world, it very, very, very rarely ever breaks an exclusive story.
Much of the news is regurgitated press releases -- as well as again, lots of product placement.
Usually, any exclusive stories come from the result of documentary researchers working for shows such as Panorama, and not from the news dept.
The BBC's new multi-million Pacific Quay HQ is state-of-the-art, with all the latest tech and a fantastic studio.
But all it does is host tabloid-style regional news, cheap game show "The Weakest Link", and a few other unscripted talent and variety shows.
The quality of the BBC's production crew seems to have diminished dramatically over the past few years.
There's barely a single show that has a camera set at the correct exposure.
The editing is universally horrific across all BBC shows.
It's a vastly bloated, and increasingly dumbed-down organization.
The name "Mark Thompson" seems only to be synonymous with failure, he's inexpertly presided over the worst period in the corporation's history.
These cuts are superficial, there's considerably more changes need to be made to improve the quality of the BBC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344836</id>
	<title>Dump BBC News 24</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267628940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dump BBC News 24: there's not enough news they can or will report on to make a 24 hour news channel. Dump it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dump BBC News 24 : there 's not enough news they can or will report on to make a 24 hour news channel .
Dump it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dump BBC News 24: there's not enough news they can or will report on to make a 24 hour news channel.
Dump it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344182</id>
	<title>Stop with the freebies already!</title>
	<author>Compaqt</author>
	<datestamp>1267625580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>* Making food and handing it out (for free!) to your family, friends, and neighbors<br>* Caroling for free in the holidays<br>* Free sex (some have even institutionalized this theft as "marriage")<br>* Developing software and giving it out<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... for free<br>* Free thoughts and writing. Also get rid of WordPress, an enabler for the freebies.<br>* Handing out free food to the homeless.<br>* Free search engine results<br>* Free web browsers<br>* Free on-the-air TV signals</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* Making food and handing it out ( for free !
) to your family , friends , and neighbors * Caroling for free in the holidays * Free sex ( some have even institutionalized this theft as " marriage " ) * Developing software and giving it out ... for free * Free thoughts and writing .
Also get rid of WordPress , an enabler for the freebies .
* Handing out free food to the homeless .
* Free search engine results * Free web browsers * Free on-the-air TV signals</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* Making food and handing it out (for free!
) to your family, friends, and neighbors* Caroling for free in the holidays* Free sex (some have even institutionalized this theft as "marriage")* Developing software and giving it out ... for free* Free thoughts and writing.
Also get rid of WordPress, an enabler for the freebies.
* Handing out free food to the homeless.
* Free search engine results* Free web browsers* Free on-the-air TV signals</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344114</id>
	<title>Re:I will happily give BBC more of my money...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267625220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://isohunt.com/torrents/top+gear?iht=-1&amp;ihp=1&amp;ihs1=2&amp;iho1=d" title="isohunt.com" rel="nofollow">http://isohunt.com/torrents/top+gear?iht=-1&amp;ihp=1&amp;ihs1=2&amp;iho1=d</a> [isohunt.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //isohunt.com/torrents/top + gear ? iht = -1&amp;ihp = 1&amp;ihs1 = 2&amp;iho1 = d [ isohunt.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://isohunt.com/torrents/top+gear?iht=-1&amp;ihp=1&amp;ihs1=2&amp;iho1=d [isohunt.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343936</id>
	<title>Ditch the super-stars</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1267624020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I vaguelly remember an article in the newspaper that listed the BBC employee costs. A significant part of those was in paying "super-stars" (those entertainers that get payed millions of pounds per-year).</p><p>In a country like the UK with a long tradition of great humourists, paying a single comedian like Johnathan Ross 18 million pounds a year to host a couple of talk-shows is incredibly bad value for money.</p><p>Just for comparisson sake, the budget of BBC Radio 6 Music (which they're also planning on closing) is half as much. That's 24h/day, 7 days a weak, 52 weeks a year of music for half the price of maybe 10h/week of programming with Johnathan Ross. Measured in in hours-of-entertainment/pound terms that means that Johnathan Ross costs almost 34x more than BBC Radio 6 Music (and he's definetly not 34 times better).</p><p>Ditch that guy and couple more like him and replace them with new blood and you'll probably be able to cover the 110 million pounds that the BBC Internet operations cost. It will even have the nice side effect of enhancing even more the BBC's work in developing and promoting new talents in the UK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I vaguelly remember an article in the newspaper that listed the BBC employee costs .
A significant part of those was in paying " super-stars " ( those entertainers that get payed millions of pounds per-year ) .In a country like the UK with a long tradition of great humourists , paying a single comedian like Johnathan Ross 18 million pounds a year to host a couple of talk-shows is incredibly bad value for money.Just for comparisson sake , the budget of BBC Radio 6 Music ( which they 're also planning on closing ) is half as much .
That 's 24h/day , 7 days a weak , 52 weeks a year of music for half the price of maybe 10h/week of programming with Johnathan Ross .
Measured in in hours-of-entertainment/pound terms that means that Johnathan Ross costs almost 34x more than BBC Radio 6 Music ( and he 's definetly not 34 times better ) .Ditch that guy and couple more like him and replace them with new blood and you 'll probably be able to cover the 110 million pounds that the BBC Internet operations cost .
It will even have the nice side effect of enhancing even more the BBC 's work in developing and promoting new talents in the UK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I vaguelly remember an article in the newspaper that listed the BBC employee costs.
A significant part of those was in paying "super-stars" (those entertainers that get payed millions of pounds per-year).In a country like the UK with a long tradition of great humourists, paying a single comedian like Johnathan Ross 18 million pounds a year to host a couple of talk-shows is incredibly bad value for money.Just for comparisson sake, the budget of BBC Radio 6 Music (which they're also planning on closing) is half as much.
That's 24h/day, 7 days a weak, 52 weeks a year of music for half the price of maybe 10h/week of programming with Johnathan Ross.
Measured in in hours-of-entertainment/pound terms that means that Johnathan Ross costs almost 34x more than BBC Radio 6 Music (and he's definetly not 34 times better).Ditch that guy and couple more like him and replace them with new blood and you'll probably be able to cover the 110 million pounds that the BBC Internet operations cost.
It will even have the nice side effect of enhancing even more the BBC's work in developing and promoting new talents in the UK.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344426</id>
	<title>Re:I will happily give BBC more of my money...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267626900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 40 minute cuts are what's left when they remove Jeremy Clarkson's unfavourable comments about Americans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 40 minute cuts are what 's left when they remove Jeremy Clarkson 's unfavourable comments about Americans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 40 minute cuts are what's left when they remove Jeremy Clarkson's unfavourable comments about Americans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344212</id>
	<title>Re:drop proprietary software?</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1267625760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they're going to cut, I wish they'd cut the money spent on DRM material for other private companies, rather than the freely available non-DRM material. (And before anyone asks, I am a licence payer.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're going to cut , I wish they 'd cut the money spent on DRM material for other private companies , rather than the freely available non-DRM material .
( And before anyone asks , I am a licence payer .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're going to cut, I wish they'd cut the money spent on DRM material for other private companies, rather than the freely available non-DRM material.
(And before anyone asks, I am a licence payer.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344196</id>
	<title>Doctor Who</title>
	<author>Terminus32</author>
	<datestamp>1267625700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So long as they don't fuck with Steven Moffat's new series of <i>Doctor Who</i> then I'm not too bothered...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P</htmltext>
<tokenext>So long as they do n't fuck with Steven Moffat 's new series of Doctor Who then I 'm not too bothered... : -P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So long as they don't fuck with Steven Moffat's new series of Doctor Who then I'm not too bothered... :-P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344576</id>
	<title>Re:News on the BBC is not free (if you live in UK)</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1267627560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This seems to be a case of "like father, like son": Rupert Murdoch never had any problems with the idea of saying outrageous lies in order to strengthen his political position in order to strengthen his bank balance. Never mind that what James says is absolute bollocks, concentrate on what he's actually trying to accomplish, namely weakening the BBC in favor of his own publications.</p><p>The BBC is a truly fine institution, one that shows the potential of public broadcasting. The Murdoch family's, on the other hand, is most definitely not. For instance, the Wall Street Journal has gone dramatically downhill on the quality of its news reporting since News Corp took it over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems to be a case of " like father , like son " : Rupert Murdoch never had any problems with the idea of saying outrageous lies in order to strengthen his political position in order to strengthen his bank balance .
Never mind that what James says is absolute bollocks , concentrate on what he 's actually trying to accomplish , namely weakening the BBC in favor of his own publications.The BBC is a truly fine institution , one that shows the potential of public broadcasting .
The Murdoch family 's , on the other hand , is most definitely not .
For instance , the Wall Street Journal has gone dramatically downhill on the quality of its news reporting since News Corp took it over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems to be a case of "like father, like son": Rupert Murdoch never had any problems with the idea of saying outrageous lies in order to strengthen his political position in order to strengthen his bank balance.
Never mind that what James says is absolute bollocks, concentrate on what he's actually trying to accomplish, namely weakening the BBC in favor of his own publications.The BBC is a truly fine institution, one that shows the potential of public broadcasting.
The Murdoch family's, on the other hand, is most definitely not.
For instance, the Wall Street Journal has gone dramatically downhill on the quality of its news reporting since News Corp took it over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343450</id>
	<title>Re:Labour Party</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1267620960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The word is the same, it's just a variant spelling.  You'd figure the people who invented the language would know that.  Cultural imperialism?  Huh?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The word is the same , it 's just a variant spelling .
You 'd figure the people who invented the language would know that .
Cultural imperialism ?
Huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The word is the same, it's just a variant spelling.
You'd figure the people who invented the language would know that.
Cultural imperialism?
Huh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343912</id>
	<title>Quick ! Call the waambulance for Murdoch</title>
	<author>SgtChaireBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1267623840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.</i> <br>--Heinlein.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Yeah Heinlein was a crank but he is spot on in that quote.  <br>
<br>
Since when is it the obligation of the taxpayers to support Murdoch if he can't even provide himself with a viable business model?  Corporate welfare beggars like Murdoch posing as businessmen really waste a lot of our resources and just seem to have no other purpose than to try to make things suck as much as they can.
</p><p>
I bet the fight against open standards may be at the bottom and that the real goal is getting at and stopping Dirac.  It's a good codec and royalty-free.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future , even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest .
This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law .
Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped , or turned back .
--Heinlein . Yeah Heinlein was a crank but he is spot on in that quote .
Since when is it the obligation of the taxpayers to support Murdoch if he ca n't even provide himself with a viable business model ?
Corporate welfare beggars like Murdoch posing as businessmen really waste a lot of our resources and just seem to have no other purpose than to try to make things suck as much as they can .
I bet the fight against open standards may be at the bottom and that the real goal is getting at and stopping Dirac .
It 's a good codec and royalty-free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest.
This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law.
Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.
--Heinlein.
Yeah Heinlein was a crank but he is spot on in that quote.
Since when is it the obligation of the taxpayers to support Murdoch if he can't even provide himself with a viable business model?
Corporate welfare beggars like Murdoch posing as businessmen really waste a lot of our resources and just seem to have no other purpose than to try to make things suck as much as they can.
I bet the fight against open standards may be at the bottom and that the real goal is getting at and stopping Dirac.
It's a good codec and royalty-free.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31347124</id>
	<title>Re:Stupidest move, ever</title>
	<author>uiberto</author>
	<datestamp>1267638540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just to clarify, the complaints about BBC being a free service were made by James Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch's son.</p><p>Zen master Roshi asked his disciple, 'Is James Murdoch a bastard?'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just to clarify , the complaints about BBC being a free service were made by James Murdoch , Rupert Murdoch 's son.Zen master Roshi asked his disciple , 'Is James Murdoch a bastard ?
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just to clarify, the complaints about BBC being a free service were made by James Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch's son.Zen master Roshi asked his disciple, 'Is James Murdoch a bastard?
'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31346930</id>
	<title>Re:I'm impressed</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1267637820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny that the BBC is less biased than Murdoch's yellow journalism too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny that the BBC is less biased than Murdoch 's yellow journalism too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny that the BBC is less biased than Murdoch's yellow journalism too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31346018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344038</id>
	<title>Re:I will happily give BBC more of my money...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267624740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is one of my beefs with copyright law as it is implemented today. I want to be able to see the REAL bbc channels(to watch top gear, real british news, british comedy etc.) and I want to see the real French channels (to watch their talk shows). But because I live in Denmark that is not possible. No amount of money would make it possible. It is technically feasible, because I can receive the same satellites as the UK. But they will not sell me the decoding equipment.</p><p>The reason is that they are not allowed to by their content providers. So instead I can get some watered-down international versions, or I can get it "free" on the Internet. I cannot feel sympathy for the plight of the big content providers(murdoch et al.) when they won't even take my money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of my beefs with copyright law as it is implemented today .
I want to be able to see the REAL bbc channels ( to watch top gear , real british news , british comedy etc .
) and I want to see the real French channels ( to watch their talk shows ) .
But because I live in Denmark that is not possible .
No amount of money would make it possible .
It is technically feasible , because I can receive the same satellites as the UK .
But they will not sell me the decoding equipment.The reason is that they are not allowed to by their content providers .
So instead I can get some watered-down international versions , or I can get it " free " on the Internet .
I can not feel sympathy for the plight of the big content providers ( murdoch et al .
) when they wo n't even take my money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of my beefs with copyright law as it is implemented today.
I want to be able to see the REAL bbc channels(to watch top gear, real british news, british comedy etc.
) and I want to see the real French channels (to watch their talk shows).
But because I live in Denmark that is not possible.
No amount of money would make it possible.
It is technically feasible, because I can receive the same satellites as the UK.
But they will not sell me the decoding equipment.The reason is that they are not allowed to by their content providers.
So instead I can get some watered-down international versions, or I can get it "free" on the Internet.
I cannot feel sympathy for the plight of the big content providers(murdoch et al.
) when they won't even take my money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31345022</id>
	<title>Re:drop proprietary software?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267629780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, the entire BBC web stack uses open source software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , the entire BBC web stack uses open source software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, the entire BBC web stack uses open source software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344672</id>
	<title>Re:Ditch the super-stars</title>
	<author>clickclickdrone</author>
	<datestamp>1267628100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;Ditch that guy <br>
He's already indicated he's not asking for a contract renewal this year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Ditch that guy He 's already indicated he 's not asking for a contract renewal this year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Ditch that guy 
He's already indicated he's not asking for a contract renewal this year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343498</id>
	<title>Re:Stupidest move, ever</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267621260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I certainly prefer BBC News, Democracy Live and the other services they provide to anything that is tainted by Rupert Murdoch.</p></div></blockquote><p>

So instead you prefer services tainted by the BBC's <a href="http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23400983-bbc-accused-of-institutional-trendy-left-wing-bias.do" title="thisislondon.co.uk" rel="nofollow">left-wing liberal bias</a> [thisislondon.co.uk]?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I certainly prefer BBC News , Democracy Live and the other services they provide to anything that is tainted by Rupert Murdoch .
So instead you prefer services tainted by the BBC 's left-wing liberal bias [ thisislondon.co.uk ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I certainly prefer BBC News, Democracy Live and the other services they provide to anything that is tainted by Rupert Murdoch.
So instead you prefer services tainted by the BBC's left-wing liberal bias [thisislondon.co.uk]?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344850</id>
	<title>Re:Ditch the super-stars</title>
	<author>jcupitt65</author>
	<datestamp>1267629000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not defending Woss, but his annual salary before the sacking^Wnon-renewal was around &pound;6m. The &pound;18m figure was for a three-year deal.

</p><p>See (for example) <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/17/jonathan-ross-bbc-pay-deal" title="guardian.co.uk">http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/17/jonathan-ross-bbc-pay-deal</a> [guardian.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not defending Woss , but his annual salary before the sacking ^ Wnon-renewal was around   6m .
The   18m figure was for a three-year deal .
See ( for example ) http : //www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/17/jonathan-ross-bbc-pay-deal [ guardian.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not defending Woss, but his annual salary before the sacking^Wnon-renewal was around £6m.
The £18m figure was for a three-year deal.
See (for example) http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/17/jonathan-ross-bbc-pay-deal [guardian.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344914</id>
	<title>Re:drop proprietary software?</title>
	<author>bhagwad</author>
	<datestamp>1267629240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dude, the largest IT company in India with over <b>100,000</b> employees <a href="http://osafw.blogspot.com/2009/07/tata-consultancy-services-embraces.html" title="blogspot.com">switched from MS Office to Openoffice overnight</a> [blogspot.com] without any warning and they just told the employees to get used to it.<br>  <br> 

So it can indeed happen!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , the largest IT company in India with over 100,000 employees switched from MS Office to Openoffice overnight [ blogspot.com ] without any warning and they just told the employees to get used to it .
So it can indeed happen !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, the largest IT company in India with over 100,000 employees switched from MS Office to Openoffice overnight [blogspot.com] without any warning and they just told the employees to get used to it.
So it can indeed happen!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344064</id>
	<title>Murdoch</title>
	<author>benjfowler</author>
	<datestamp>1267624860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Politics is Murdoch's bread and butter.  As far as political interference goes, that old traitor Rupert (and I call him a traitor, because he renounced his Australian citizenship for commercial reasons) would sell his mother for a Mars Bar, and would say and do anything to advance his own interests.</p><p>This sneak-attack on the BBC's online news operation will go down in history as one of the nastiest, shittiest commercial and political power plays in history.  This is a classic case of the evils of allowing people like Rupert Murdoch to become as powerful as he has -- he has effectively kneecapped one of the world's greatest news organisations, so he can force people to pay for his filthy, biased low-grade garbage (optimistically called "news").</p><p>Murdoch is threatening to turn the world into a supersized version of the US; with few large independent voices, and a news market dominated by undemocratic, fascistic shit like FOX News.  And with a for-profit, partisan, low-quality mass media that shills for its corporate masters, rather than doing its job, we are talking about a basic and dire threat to our society.</p><p>The Murdochs are a walking disaster area for our democracy, and not enough is being done to challenge them and their minions.  Old Rupert himself is a very old man, and undoubtedly his appointment with Old Nick is imminent; however that's not to say that his sons won't follow in his footsteps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Politics is Murdoch 's bread and butter .
As far as political interference goes , that old traitor Rupert ( and I call him a traitor , because he renounced his Australian citizenship for commercial reasons ) would sell his mother for a Mars Bar , and would say and do anything to advance his own interests.This sneak-attack on the BBC 's online news operation will go down in history as one of the nastiest , shittiest commercial and political power plays in history .
This is a classic case of the evils of allowing people like Rupert Murdoch to become as powerful as he has -- he has effectively kneecapped one of the world 's greatest news organisations , so he can force people to pay for his filthy , biased low-grade garbage ( optimistically called " news " ) .Murdoch is threatening to turn the world into a supersized version of the US ; with few large independent voices , and a news market dominated by undemocratic , fascistic shit like FOX News .
And with a for-profit , partisan , low-quality mass media that shills for its corporate masters , rather than doing its job , we are talking about a basic and dire threat to our society.The Murdochs are a walking disaster area for our democracy , and not enough is being done to challenge them and their minions .
Old Rupert himself is a very old man , and undoubtedly his appointment with Old Nick is imminent ; however that 's not to say that his sons wo n't follow in his footsteps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Politics is Murdoch's bread and butter.
As far as political interference goes, that old traitor Rupert (and I call him a traitor, because he renounced his Australian citizenship for commercial reasons) would sell his mother for a Mars Bar, and would say and do anything to advance his own interests.This sneak-attack on the BBC's online news operation will go down in history as one of the nastiest, shittiest commercial and political power plays in history.
This is a classic case of the evils of allowing people like Rupert Murdoch to become as powerful as he has -- he has effectively kneecapped one of the world's greatest news organisations, so he can force people to pay for his filthy, biased low-grade garbage (optimistically called "news").Murdoch is threatening to turn the world into a supersized version of the US; with few large independent voices, and a news market dominated by undemocratic, fascistic shit like FOX News.
And with a for-profit, partisan, low-quality mass media that shills for its corporate masters, rather than doing its job, we are talking about a basic and dire threat to our society.The Murdochs are a walking disaster area for our democracy, and not enough is being done to challenge them and their minions.
Old Rupert himself is a very old man, and undoubtedly his appointment with Old Nick is imminent; however that's not to say that his sons won't follow in his footsteps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31351920</id>
	<title>Who's in charge here?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267617960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Once again the Murdoch empire says jump, and the UK government says "How high sir?". The UK (along with most western countries) needs to sack every single mp and start again from scratch. Unless they want murdoch and other corporate fatcats to control thier lives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Once again the Murdoch empire says jump , and the UK government says " How high sir ? " .
The UK ( along with most western countries ) needs to sack every single mp and start again from scratch .
Unless they want murdoch and other corporate fatcats to control thier lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once again the Murdoch empire says jump, and the UK government says "How high sir?".
The UK (along with most western countries) needs to sack every single mp and start again from scratch.
Unless they want murdoch and other corporate fatcats to control thier lives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343482</id>
	<title>Now there's a Surprise</title>
	<author>BBadhedgehog</author>
	<datestamp>1267621200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the Empire of Murdoch can't emtirely dominate in the UK due to the BBC<br> <br>
So The Sun, the UK's most popular paper and owned by the Empie of Murdoch, changes its support from Labour to the Conservatives<br> <br>
And the BBC's board back down.<br> <br>
Abso-bloody-lutely marvellous.  Now we can have news of the quality and independence served to the US by Fox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the Empire of Murdoch ca n't emtirely dominate in the UK due to the BBC So The Sun , the UK 's most popular paper and owned by the Empie of Murdoch , changes its support from Labour to the Conservatives And the BBC 's board back down .
Abso-bloody-lutely marvellous .
Now we can have news of the quality and independence served to the US by Fox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the Empire of Murdoch can't emtirely dominate in the UK due to the BBC 
So The Sun, the UK's most popular paper and owned by the Empie of Murdoch, changes its support from Labour to the Conservatives 
And the BBC's board back down.
Abso-bloody-lutely marvellous.
Now we can have news of the quality and independence served to the US by Fox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343314</id>
	<title>drop proprietary software?</title>
	<author>metageek</author>
	<datestamp>1267619880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone knows that you can cut costs substantially by switching to open source. This is a good time for them to get back to using open source and open standards: get rid of your flash-based, linux-unfriendly, iPlayer and stick with open source (theora, etc). They could also stop using word/excel etc and move to open office... I bet the savings on licence costs would be large!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone knows that you can cut costs substantially by switching to open source .
This is a good time for them to get back to using open source and open standards : get rid of your flash-based , linux-unfriendly , iPlayer and stick with open source ( theora , etc ) .
They could also stop using word/excel etc and move to open office... I bet the savings on licence costs would be large !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone knows that you can cut costs substantially by switching to open source.
This is a good time for them to get back to using open source and open standards: get rid of your flash-based, linux-unfriendly, iPlayer and stick with open source (theora, etc).
They could also stop using word/excel etc and move to open office... I bet the savings on licence costs would be large!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343704</id>
	<title>Re:Fuck you Rupert</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267622580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couldn't agree more.</p><p>His "free news" part is hilariously stupid too, it is illegal for BBC to make people in the UK pay for news since they already do through TV licence.  (or iPlayer, or anything else)<br>And they aren't stupid enough to force people outside of the UK to pay for things online either, least of all for news.   (at least, i'd like to think so)</p><p>Until online payment systems become simple for any idiot to use, nobody is going to go for it.  People are scared of the big world wide web as it is, paying for things on it?  "ARE YOU CRAZY, THE DIGITAL HACKERS WILL STEAL MY BABY!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't agree more.His " free news " part is hilariously stupid too , it is illegal for BBC to make people in the UK pay for news since they already do through TV licence .
( or iPlayer , or anything else ) And they are n't stupid enough to force people outside of the UK to pay for things online either , least of all for news .
( at least , i 'd like to think so ) Until online payment systems become simple for any idiot to use , nobody is going to go for it .
People are scared of the big world wide web as it is , paying for things on it ?
" ARE YOU CRAZY , THE DIGITAL HACKERS WILL STEAL MY BABY !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't agree more.His "free news" part is hilariously stupid too, it is illegal for BBC to make people in the UK pay for news since they already do through TV licence.
(or iPlayer, or anything else)And they aren't stupid enough to force people outside of the UK to pay for things online either, least of all for news.
(at least, i'd like to think so)Until online payment systems become simple for any idiot to use, nobody is going to go for it.
People are scared of the big world wide web as it is, paying for things on it?
"ARE YOU CRAZY, THE DIGITAL HACKERS WILL STEAL MY BABY!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344008</id>
	<title>Re:I will happily give BBC more of my money...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267624500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe a worldwide version of the iPlayer is coming soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe a worldwide version of the iPlayer is coming soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe a worldwide version of the iPlayer is coming soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343426</id>
	<title>Re:I will happily give BBC more of my money...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267620780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As of the most recent season, Top Gear is now shot on HD. So hopefully there will be a Blu-ray release, avoiding PAL/NTSC issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As of the most recent season , Top Gear is now shot on HD .
So hopefully there will be a Blu-ray release , avoiding PAL/NTSC issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As of the most recent season, Top Gear is now shot on HD.
So hopefully there will be a Blu-ray release, avoiding PAL/NTSC issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31354046</id>
	<title>Re:Stupidest move, ever</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1267632780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Just because Murdoch doesn't understand the web and has no sense to realise that, quality news sources like the BBC shouldn't just provide a more shitty service to make Murdoch lose less money.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Murdoch understands the web, he is just frustrated that it is not as easy to control as print was.<br> <br>

This is Murdoch's Modus Operandi, when he cant gain (or force) financial control over a media entity he will petition the government to allow him an uncompetitive advantage, this has been done many times before (not just with the Beeb). So...<br> <br> Dear Rupert/Crotchspawn,<br> Try competing with the BBC by changing your own business model rather then attempting to force the government to change the BBC to your shady business model.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because Murdoch does n't understand the web and has no sense to realise that , quality news sources like the BBC should n't just provide a more shitty service to make Murdoch lose less money .
Murdoch understands the web , he is just frustrated that it is not as easy to control as print was .
This is Murdoch 's Modus Operandi , when he cant gain ( or force ) financial control over a media entity he will petition the government to allow him an uncompetitive advantage , this has been done many times before ( not just with the Beeb ) .
So... Dear Rupert/Crotchspawn , Try competing with the BBC by changing your own business model rather then attempting to force the government to change the BBC to your shady business model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because Murdoch doesn't understand the web and has no sense to realise that, quality news sources like the BBC shouldn't just provide a more shitty service to make Murdoch lose less money.
Murdoch understands the web, he is just frustrated that it is not as easy to control as print was.
This is Murdoch's Modus Operandi, when he cant gain (or force) financial control over a media entity he will petition the government to allow him an uncompetitive advantage, this has been done many times before (not just with the Beeb).
So...  Dear Rupert/Crotchspawn, Try competing with the BBC by changing your own business model rather then attempting to force the government to change the BBC to your shady business model.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344574</id>
	<title>My 8 cents worth</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1267627560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The ABC/SBS is set up like the BBC but we got rid of the licenses in the 70's. The money now comes from general taxation. Most Aussies will know the expression "My 8 cents worth". It refers to a 1990's promotion the ABC ran informing taxpayers what the ABC was costing them per day. Taking inflation into account it's probably double that now. Even if you don't personally watch it, it's still a far better investment than any of Murdoch's daily rags.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ABC/SBS is set up like the BBC but we got rid of the licenses in the 70 's .
The money now comes from general taxation .
Most Aussies will know the expression " My 8 cents worth " .
It refers to a 1990 's promotion the ABC ran informing taxpayers what the ABC was costing them per day .
Taking inflation into account it 's probably double that now .
Even if you do n't personally watch it , it 's still a far better investment than any of Murdoch 's daily rags .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ABC/SBS is set up like the BBC but we got rid of the licenses in the 70's.
The money now comes from general taxation.
Most Aussies will know the expression "My 8 cents worth".
It refers to a 1990's promotion the ABC ran informing taxpayers what the ABC was costing them per day.
Taking inflation into account it's probably double that now.
Even if you don't personally watch it, it's still a far better investment than any of Murdoch's daily rags.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343748</id>
	<title>Re:News on the BBC is not free (if you live in UK)</title>
	<author>operator\_error</author>
	<datestamp>1267622940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No doubt! If the BBC revenues were increased due to monetization of internet publishing, I doubt we'd be having this discussion today. Try another business model folks, it is the internet, deal with it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No doubt !
If the BBC revenues were increased due to monetization of internet publishing , I doubt we 'd be having this discussion today .
Try another business model folks , it is the internet , deal with it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No doubt!
If the BBC revenues were increased due to monetization of internet publishing, I doubt we'd be having this discussion today.
Try another business model folks, it is the internet, deal with it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344092</id>
	<title>Re:Labour Party</title>
	<author>ljw1004</author>
	<datestamp>1267625100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure you do. Someone called "William/Bill" in English is called "Guillaume" in French. Someone called "Lucian" in English is called "Lucien" in France and "Luciano" in Italy. And so on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure you do .
Someone called " William/Bill " in English is called " Guillaume " in French .
Someone called " Lucian " in English is called " Lucien " in France and " Luciano " in Italy .
And so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure you do.
Someone called "William/Bill" in English is called "Guillaume" in French.
Someone called "Lucian" in English is called "Lucien" in France and "Luciano" in Italy.
And so on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343416</id>
	<title>If they need money...</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1267620720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... maybe its time they sue the company that keeps accidentally dropping pianos on their test track.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... maybe its time they sue the company that keeps accidentally dropping pianos on their test track .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... maybe its time they sue the company that keeps accidentally dropping pianos on their test track.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31346458</id>
	<title>If it is so great.....</title>
	<author>Budenny</author>
	<datestamp>1267635840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If its so great, why do we have to make it a crime to watch TV in the UK, if you do not subscribe to it.  Whether you watch it or not.</p><p>We don't make it a crime to read newspapers without subscribing to the Times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If its so great , why do we have to make it a crime to watch TV in the UK , if you do not subscribe to it .
Whether you watch it or not.We do n't make it a crime to read newspapers without subscribing to the Times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If its so great, why do we have to make it a crime to watch TV in the UK, if you do not subscribe to it.
Whether you watch it or not.We don't make it a crime to read newspapers without subscribing to the Times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343384</id>
	<title>Re:Stupidest move, ever</title>
	<author>halowolf</author>
	<datestamp>1267620480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well Rupert could always try just making something better than what BBC offers. A crazy concept I know...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well Rupert could always try just making something better than what BBC offers .
A crazy concept I know.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well Rupert could always try just making something better than what BBC offers.
A crazy concept I know...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343778</id>
	<title>it's not hard to ask</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267623060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"incredibly hard for private news organizations to ask people to pay for their news."</p><p>it's not hard to ask i just don't want your news.</p><p>i want to pay my tv license and have an organisation that tells me what's going on and not what they think sells papers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" incredibly hard for private news organizations to ask people to pay for their news .
" it 's not hard to ask i just do n't want your news.i want to pay my tv license and have an organisation that tells me what 's going on and not what they think sells papers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"incredibly hard for private news organizations to ask people to pay for their news.
"it's not hard to ask i just don't want your news.i want to pay my tv license and have an organisation that tells me what's going on and not what they think sells papers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343954</id>
	<title>Re:Stupidest move, ever</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267624140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So instead you prefer services tainted by the BBC's <a href="http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23400983-bbc-accused-of-institutional-trendy-left-wing-bias.do" title="thisislondon.co.uk" rel="nofollow">left-wing liberal bias</a> [thisislondon.co.uk]?</p></div><p>If you're right-wing, then even centrists will appear to have a left-wing bias. That's why the phrase crops us so much in the Daily Mail, Express, Sun, Times, Telegraph,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>To the raving nut-jobs in the UKIP, BNP and beyond, practically everyone looks left-wing and liberal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So instead you prefer services tainted by the BBC 's left-wing liberal bias [ thisislondon.co.uk ] ? If you 're right-wing , then even centrists will appear to have a left-wing bias .
That 's why the phrase crops us so much in the Daily Mail , Express , Sun , Times , Telegraph , ...To the raving nut-jobs in the UKIP , BNP and beyond , practically everyone looks left-wing and liberal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So instead you prefer services tainted by the BBC's left-wing liberal bias [thisislondon.co.uk]?If you're right-wing, then even centrists will appear to have a left-wing bias.
That's why the phrase crops us so much in the Daily Mail, Express, Sun, Times, Telegraph, ...To the raving nut-jobs in the UKIP, BNP and beyond, practically everyone looks left-wing and liberal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343500</id>
	<title>Re:Labour Party</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1267621260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The word is the same, it's just a variant spelling.</p></div><p>You don't apply variant spelling to proper nouns.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The word is the same , it 's just a variant spelling.You do n't apply variant spelling to proper nouns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The word is the same, it's just a variant spelling.You don't apply variant spelling to proper nouns.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31353234</id>
	<title>Re:I'm impressed</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1267626540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There seems to be a universal dislike of Murdoch, it's good to see the slashdot community agreeing on something (anything).<br>
It's surprising there don't seem to be any libertarians arguing that because the BBC is tax-funded it is evil compared wit the saintly Murdoch free-marketeers.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Thats because Murdoch is the antitheisis of the free market, even more so then the Beeb. The public monoploy will respond to external preasure, the private one does not. Even the Liberatards see this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There seems to be a universal dislike of Murdoch , it 's good to see the slashdot community agreeing on something ( anything ) .
It 's surprising there do n't seem to be any libertarians arguing that because the BBC is tax-funded it is evil compared wit the saintly Murdoch free-marketeers .
Thats because Murdoch is the antitheisis of the free market , even more so then the Beeb .
The public monoploy will respond to external preasure , the private one does not .
Even the Liberatards see this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There seems to be a universal dislike of Murdoch, it's good to see the slashdot community agreeing on something (anything).
It's surprising there don't seem to be any libertarians arguing that because the BBC is tax-funded it is evil compared wit the saintly Murdoch free-marketeers.
Thats because Murdoch is the antitheisis of the free market, even more so then the Beeb.
The public monoploy will respond to external preasure, the private one does not.
Even the Liberatards see this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31346018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31345660</id>
	<title>Re:whence cometh this God-given right to make us p</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1267632360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So where does Murdoch's mythical right to extract money from the public come from?</p> </div><p>Keep in mind that the BBC has a considerable revenue stream that has nothing to do with their ability to satisfy viewers. Why should the BBC have the power to extract money from the public, but not some competitor like Fox?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So where does Murdoch 's mythical right to extract money from the public come from ?
Keep in mind that the BBC has a considerable revenue stream that has nothing to do with their ability to satisfy viewers .
Why should the BBC have the power to extract money from the public , but not some competitor like Fox ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So where does Murdoch's mythical right to extract money from the public come from?
Keep in mind that the BBC has a considerable revenue stream that has nothing to do with their ability to satisfy viewers.
Why should the BBC have the power to extract money from the public, but not some competitor like Fox?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343944</id>
	<title>Re:I will happily give BBC more of my money...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267624080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Top Gear? WTF is that? A program recommend the best bongs? Where to get the best tooting straws? Gee, you Europeans really are moral degenerates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Top Gear ?
WTF is that ?
A program recommend the best bongs ?
Where to get the best tooting straws ?
Gee , you Europeans really are moral degenerates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Top Gear?
WTF is that?
A program recommend the best bongs?
Where to get the best tooting straws?
Gee, you Europeans really are moral degenerates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344002</id>
	<title>Re:Stupidest move, ever</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1267624440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The BBC has a pretty good web presence. I certainly prefer BBC News, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi" title="bbc.co.uk">Democracy Live</a> [bbc.co.uk] and the other services they provide to anything that is tainted by Rupert Murdoch. Just because Murdoch doesn't understand the web and has no sense to realise that, quality news sources like the BBC shouldn't just provide a more shitty service to make Murdoch lose less money.</p><p>In this case, a public service is providing great service and if you can't compete with that, instead of whining maybe you should go bankrupt.</p></div><p>I don't disagree with anything you've said.  I think what Murdoch is <i>saying</i> is stupid.  I've seen people point out here previously, however, that Murdoch himself is not stupid.  He might just be an old media dinosaur in this case but I wouldn't be so sure.  He holds vast swing in UK politics and what he's basically emitting are none-too-subtly coded messages that he wants something done about the BBC.  By being so noisy about how it's impossible to make money in ways he 'ought' to be able to he's also spreading the meme that pay-to-access information is better, that it's a business model that needs protecting explicitly, that the BBC is bigger than people want.  He's working towards a political climate in which it will be more acceptable / desirable for the next government to attempt to constrain the BBC and "regulate the internet".</p><p>It would probably be good for "the people" if Rupert Murdoch were simply falling behind the times and losing his control.  On the other hand, if this is just a move to stall changes in society / industry and put roadblocks in the way of competition then I'm somewhat worried he'll succeed (temporarily) and cause harm overall.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The BBC has a pretty good web presence .
I certainly prefer BBC News , Democracy Live [ bbc.co.uk ] and the other services they provide to anything that is tainted by Rupert Murdoch .
Just because Murdoch does n't understand the web and has no sense to realise that , quality news sources like the BBC should n't just provide a more shitty service to make Murdoch lose less money.In this case , a public service is providing great service and if you ca n't compete with that , instead of whining maybe you should go bankrupt.I do n't disagree with anything you 've said .
I think what Murdoch is saying is stupid .
I 've seen people point out here previously , however , that Murdoch himself is not stupid .
He might just be an old media dinosaur in this case but I would n't be so sure .
He holds vast swing in UK politics and what he 's basically emitting are none-too-subtly coded messages that he wants something done about the BBC .
By being so noisy about how it 's impossible to make money in ways he 'ought ' to be able to he 's also spreading the meme that pay-to-access information is better , that it 's a business model that needs protecting explicitly , that the BBC is bigger than people want .
He 's working towards a political climate in which it will be more acceptable / desirable for the next government to attempt to constrain the BBC and " regulate the internet " .It would probably be good for " the people " if Rupert Murdoch were simply falling behind the times and losing his control .
On the other hand , if this is just a move to stall changes in society / industry and put roadblocks in the way of competition then I 'm somewhat worried he 'll succeed ( temporarily ) and cause harm overall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The BBC has a pretty good web presence.
I certainly prefer BBC News, Democracy Live [bbc.co.uk] and the other services they provide to anything that is tainted by Rupert Murdoch.
Just because Murdoch doesn't understand the web and has no sense to realise that, quality news sources like the BBC shouldn't just provide a more shitty service to make Murdoch lose less money.In this case, a public service is providing great service and if you can't compete with that, instead of whining maybe you should go bankrupt.I don't disagree with anything you've said.
I think what Murdoch is saying is stupid.
I've seen people point out here previously, however, that Murdoch himself is not stupid.
He might just be an old media dinosaur in this case but I wouldn't be so sure.
He holds vast swing in UK politics and what he's basically emitting are none-too-subtly coded messages that he wants something done about the BBC.
By being so noisy about how it's impossible to make money in ways he 'ought' to be able to he's also spreading the meme that pay-to-access information is better, that it's a business model that needs protecting explicitly, that the BBC is bigger than people want.
He's working towards a political climate in which it will be more acceptable / desirable for the next government to attempt to constrain the BBC and "regulate the internet".It would probably be good for "the people" if Rupert Murdoch were simply falling behind the times and losing his control.
On the other hand, if this is just a move to stall changes in society / industry and put roadblocks in the way of competition then I'm somewhat worried he'll succeed (temporarily) and cause harm overall.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31346018</id>
	<title>I'm impressed</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1267633920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There seems to be a universal dislike of Murdoch, it's good to see the slashdot community agreeing on something (anything).
<br>
It's surprising there don't seem to be any  libertarians arguing that because the BBC is tax-funded it is evil compared wit the saintly Murdoch free-marketeers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There seems to be a universal dislike of Murdoch , it 's good to see the slashdot community agreeing on something ( anything ) .
It 's surprising there do n't seem to be any libertarians arguing that because the BBC is tax-funded it is evil compared wit the saintly Murdoch free-marketeers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There seems to be a universal dislike of Murdoch, it's good to see the slashdot community agreeing on something (anything).
It's surprising there don't seem to be any  libertarians arguing that because the BBC is tax-funded it is evil compared wit the saintly Murdoch free-marketeers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31348914</id>
	<title>Re:Stupidest move, ever</title>
	<author>vanyel</author>
	<datestamp>1267647000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Commercial entities gutting the competition by pushing politicians who don't get it.  The stated concern would be addressed by simply making bbc independent and self-supporting, but it's too good for the competition to be happy with that...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Commercial entities gutting the competition by pushing politicians who do n't get it .
The stated concern would be addressed by simply making bbc independent and self-supporting , but it 's too good for the competition to be happy with that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Commercial entities gutting the competition by pushing politicians who don't get it.
The stated concern would be addressed by simply making bbc independent and self-supporting, but it's too good for the competition to be happy with that...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31348004</id>
	<title>Re:I will happily give BBC more of my money...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267642560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe you can BitTorrent most of the BBC's more popular output shortly after its original airdate. Google tells me you certainly can for TG, though can't say if it's the full version.</p><p>Of course, if you want to assuage your guilt after obtaining content in this way, I'm sure I could find some Brits who would be happy to accept a contribution to their license fees.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe you can BitTorrent most of the BBC 's more popular output shortly after its original airdate .
Google tells me you certainly can for TG , though ca n't say if it 's the full version.Of course , if you want to assuage your guilt after obtaining content in this way , I 'm sure I could find some Brits who would be happy to accept a contribution to their license fees .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe you can BitTorrent most of the BBC's more popular output shortly after its original airdate.
Google tells me you certainly can for TG, though can't say if it's the full version.Of course, if you want to assuage your guilt after obtaining content in this way, I'm sure I could find some Brits who would be happy to accept a contribution to their license fees.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343470</id>
	<title>Re:drop proprietary software?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267621080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nonsense. Yet another armchair/basement nerd with no experience of how tech works in the real world. Move 35,000 employees to Open Office overnight? What about all the retraining costs? Get real.</p><p>Theora is incredibly inefficient compared to h264 encoding. The eventual transit costs (because of the bitrate increase necessary to maintain quality) would dwarf the licensing costs.</p><p>Your argument would only save money because by removing content restrictions, 80\% of the content would have to disappear from the iPlayer - rendering it much less useful and popular in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nonsense .
Yet another armchair/basement nerd with no experience of how tech works in the real world .
Move 35,000 employees to Open Office overnight ?
What about all the retraining costs ?
Get real.Theora is incredibly inefficient compared to h264 encoding .
The eventual transit costs ( because of the bitrate increase necessary to maintain quality ) would dwarf the licensing costs.Your argument would only save money because by removing content restrictions , 80 \ % of the content would have to disappear from the iPlayer - rendering it much less useful and popular in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nonsense.
Yet another armchair/basement nerd with no experience of how tech works in the real world.
Move 35,000 employees to Open Office overnight?
What about all the retraining costs?
Get real.Theora is incredibly inefficient compared to h264 encoding.
The eventual transit costs (because of the bitrate increase necessary to maintain quality) would dwarf the licensing costs.Your argument would only save money because by removing content restrictions, 80\% of the content would have to disappear from the iPlayer - rendering it much less useful and popular in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344956</id>
	<title>At least they've got low-budget experience</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1267629420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not good news.  But at least we've seen the BBC respond to budgetary and practical issues in the past through innovation.  I imagine that something along the lines of "Oh no, we've got all these historical costumes from other dramas lying around!  And lots of bubblewrap!  And some shiny things we can't identify.  And some old breakfast.  And I certainly don't know what to do with that old Police Box, it's just taking up space!".  Use up the costume drama cast-offs by doing time-travel, save on special effects by using a police box (and make it bigger on the inside - much easier than having a full-size spaceship model to lug around), cover a few props guys in bubble wrap and tip some porridge over them - and we basically have Doctor Who, one of their most successful shows and one of the most enduring Sci Fi shows around.  Budget and plausible special effects came later.</p><p>Other examples abound, I'm sure - sometimes austerity breeds innovation although that's not really a good reason for forcing it on a quality broadcaster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not good news .
But at least we 've seen the BBC respond to budgetary and practical issues in the past through innovation .
I imagine that something along the lines of " Oh no , we 've got all these historical costumes from other dramas lying around !
And lots of bubblewrap !
And some shiny things we ca n't identify .
And some old breakfast .
And I certainly do n't know what to do with that old Police Box , it 's just taking up space ! " .
Use up the costume drama cast-offs by doing time-travel , save on special effects by using a police box ( and make it bigger on the inside - much easier than having a full-size spaceship model to lug around ) , cover a few props guys in bubble wrap and tip some porridge over them - and we basically have Doctor Who , one of their most successful shows and one of the most enduring Sci Fi shows around .
Budget and plausible special effects came later.Other examples abound , I 'm sure - sometimes austerity breeds innovation although that 's not really a good reason for forcing it on a quality broadcaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not good news.
But at least we've seen the BBC respond to budgetary and practical issues in the past through innovation.
I imagine that something along the lines of "Oh no, we've got all these historical costumes from other dramas lying around!
And lots of bubblewrap!
And some shiny things we can't identify.
And some old breakfast.
And I certainly don't know what to do with that old Police Box, it's just taking up space!".
Use up the costume drama cast-offs by doing time-travel, save on special effects by using a police box (and make it bigger on the inside - much easier than having a full-size spaceship model to lug around), cover a few props guys in bubble wrap and tip some porridge over them - and we basically have Doctor Who, one of their most successful shows and one of the most enduring Sci Fi shows around.
Budget and plausible special effects came later.Other examples abound, I'm sure - sometimes austerity breeds innovation although that's not really a good reason for forcing it on a quality broadcaster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31345812</id>
	<title>Re:I will happily give BBC more of my money...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267632960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>iTunes has the last 6 or so seasons on their US store, and every episode is the full hour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>iTunes has the last 6 or so seasons on their US store , and every episode is the full hour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>iTunes has the last 6 or so seasons on their US store, and every episode is the full hour.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343392</id>
	<title>Fuck you Rupert</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1267620480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Murdoch has also been making a lot of noise about the Australian broacasting commission's (ABC) "stealing" his audience. The state sponsered TV channels in Oz are the only one's left with any real journalists, this prick won't be satisfied until he removes every last skeric of independence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Murdoch has also been making a lot of noise about the Australian broacasting commission 's ( ABC ) " stealing " his audience .
The state sponsered TV channels in Oz are the only one 's left with any real journalists , this prick wo n't be satisfied until he removes every last skeric of independence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Murdoch has also been making a lot of noise about the Australian broacasting commission's (ABC) "stealing" his audience.
The state sponsered TV channels in Oz are the only one's left with any real journalists, this prick won't be satisfied until he removes every last skeric of independence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31364234</id>
	<title>Look,</title>
	<author>bahamuut</author>
	<datestamp>1267704060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really don't care what they cut, can I get some RECENT Dr Who here in the states???  Please?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't care what they cut , can I get some RECENT Dr Who here in the states ? ? ?
Please ? !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't care what they cut, can I get some RECENT Dr Who here in the states???
Please?!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31354080</id>
	<title>Re:BRITISH broadcasting corporation</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1267633260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I would even pay to watch ITV if it meant no adverts and no lowest common denominator programming.</p></div></blockquote><p>

There is appears to be some errors in your statement.<br> <br>

1. Even if you paid ITV, you'd still get ad's. We have this in Australia, our pay TV service FoxTel (Guess who owns it) now has as many if not more advertising then free to air stations (and wonders why they are losing subscriptions). Not to mention that it starts at A$60 a month and is about A$100 if you want something decent like History or Discovery but still you have 20 channels of braindead sitcoms.<br> <br>

2. They will always aim at the LCD, this is their bread and butter, the ones who buy into the advertising.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would even pay to watch ITV if it meant no adverts and no lowest common denominator programming .
There is appears to be some errors in your statement .
1. Even if you paid ITV , you 'd still get ad 's .
We have this in Australia , our pay TV service FoxTel ( Guess who owns it ) now has as many if not more advertising then free to air stations ( and wonders why they are losing subscriptions ) .
Not to mention that it starts at A $ 60 a month and is about A $ 100 if you want something decent like History or Discovery but still you have 20 channels of braindead sitcoms .
2. They will always aim at the LCD , this is their bread and butter , the ones who buy into the advertising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would even pay to watch ITV if it meant no adverts and no lowest common denominator programming.
There is appears to be some errors in your statement.
1. Even if you paid ITV, you'd still get ad's.
We have this in Australia, our pay TV service FoxTel (Guess who owns it) now has as many if not more advertising then free to air stations (and wonders why they are losing subscriptions).
Not to mention that it starts at A$60 a month and is about A$100 if you want something decent like History or Discovery but still you have 20 channels of braindead sitcoms.
2. They will always aim at the LCD, this is their bread and butter, the ones who buy into the advertising.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343400</id>
	<title>Labour Party</title>
	<author>mkavanagh2</author>
	<datestamp>1267620540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's no Labor Party in the UK. Though I've got to hand it to the USA - you fellows are really taking this cultural imperialism thing to the next level!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no Labor Party in the UK .
Though I 've got to hand it to the USA - you fellows are really taking this cultural imperialism thing to the next level !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no Labor Party in the UK.
Though I've got to hand it to the USA - you fellows are really taking this cultural imperialism thing to the next level!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343382</id>
	<title>Sound familiar?</title>
	<author>OrwellianLurker</author>
	<datestamp>1267620480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Your actions don't suit my business model-- stop it."

Now where have we heard this before?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Your actions do n't suit my business model-- stop it .
" Now where have we heard this before ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Your actions don't suit my business model-- stop it.
"

Now where have we heard this before?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343284</id>
	<title>BBC... or?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267619580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>My guess, these changes will B-B-Backfire!</htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess , these changes will B-B-Backfire !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess, these changes will B-B-Backfire!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31347256</id>
	<title>Re:Stupidest move, ever</title>
	<author>daeley</author>
	<datestamp>1267639020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So instead you prefer services tainted by the BBC's left-wing liberal bias?</p></div><p>Well, reality *does* have a <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=reality+has+a+well-known+liberal+bias" title="google.com">well-known liberal bias</a> [google.com].<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So instead you prefer services tainted by the BBC 's left-wing liberal bias ? Well , reality * does * have a well-known liberal bias [ google.com ] .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So instead you prefer services tainted by the BBC's left-wing liberal bias?Well, reality *does* have a well-known liberal bias [google.com].
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343494</id>
	<title>Re:drop proprietary software?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267621260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is DRM.  A lot of BBC programs are made in conjunction with other companies, etc. "Life" was made with the discovery channel (apparently Oprah Winfrey narrates the US/Discovery version.. jesus.. they replaced a paleontologist with a chat show host.  What the hell was wrong with Attenborough?).</p><p>Part of the licensing therefore involves the Discovery channel enforcing DRM on the BBC, which means open-source is out.  The alternative is to stop working with Discovery which would mean half the budget.  Decisions, decisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is DRM .
A lot of BBC programs are made in conjunction with other companies , etc .
" Life " was made with the discovery channel ( apparently Oprah Winfrey narrates the US/Discovery version.. jesus.. they replaced a paleontologist with a chat show host .
What the hell was wrong with Attenborough ?
) .Part of the licensing therefore involves the Discovery channel enforcing DRM on the BBC , which means open-source is out .
The alternative is to stop working with Discovery which would mean half the budget .
Decisions , decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is DRM.
A lot of BBC programs are made in conjunction with other companies, etc.
"Life" was made with the discovery channel (apparently Oprah Winfrey narrates the US/Discovery version.. jesus.. they replaced a paleontologist with a chat show host.
What the hell was wrong with Attenborough?
).Part of the licensing therefore involves the Discovery channel enforcing DRM on the BBC, which means open-source is out.
The alternative is to stop working with Discovery which would mean half the budget.
Decisions, decisions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343798</id>
	<title>I cant wait for a reduction ...</title>
	<author>Idimmu Xul</author>
	<datestamp>1267623180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't wait for a reduction in our TV licenses, due to all this money the BBC will now be saving!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't wait for a reduction in our TV licenses , due to all this money the BBC will now be saving !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't wait for a reduction in our TV licenses, due to all this money the BBC will now be saving!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31345538</id>
	<title>Re:smoke and mirrors</title>
	<author>makomk</author>
	<datestamp>1267632000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They are supposed to produce high-quality programming, and that includes minority programming that commercial broadcasters wouldn't, or couldn't, touch. Radio 6 completely falls within this remit -- Radio 1 however, most surely does not. Radio 1 is a commercial channel, in everything but name.</p></div><p>Have you tried listening to one of the commercial radio channels?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are supposed to produce high-quality programming , and that includes minority programming that commercial broadcasters would n't , or could n't , touch .
Radio 6 completely falls within this remit -- Radio 1 however , most surely does not .
Radio 1 is a commercial channel , in everything but name.Have you tried listening to one of the commercial radio channels ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are supposed to produce high-quality programming, and that includes minority programming that commercial broadcasters wouldn't, or couldn't, touch.
Radio 6 completely falls within this remit -- Radio 1 however, most surely does not.
Radio 1 is a commercial channel, in everything but name.Have you tried listening to one of the commercial radio channels?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343620</id>
	<title>Re:Fuck you Rupert</title>
	<author>Fluffeh</author>
	<datestamp>1267622040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The state sponsered TV channels in Oz are the only one's left with any real journalists, this prick won't be satisfied until he removes every last skeric of independence.</p></div><p>Absolutely. If I watch TV news (which I admit I rarely do) I will pick ABC news, SBS news (It's more world focused) and shy of those two, I have found the German News (DW News Hour) to be amazingly informative.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The state sponsered TV channels in Oz are the only one 's left with any real journalists , this prick wo n't be satisfied until he removes every last skeric of independence.Absolutely .
If I watch TV news ( which I admit I rarely do ) I will pick ABC news , SBS news ( It 's more world focused ) and shy of those two , I have found the German News ( DW News Hour ) to be amazingly informative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The state sponsered TV channels in Oz are the only one's left with any real journalists, this prick won't be satisfied until he removes every last skeric of independence.Absolutely.
If I watch TV news (which I admit I rarely do) I will pick ABC news, SBS news (It's more world focused) and shy of those two, I have found the German News (DW News Hour) to be amazingly informative.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31346646</id>
	<title>Re:Ditch the super-stars</title>
	<author>NeoSkandranon</author>
	<datestamp>1267636740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To make it fair you have to look at man-hours of entertainment. Sure the radio may be cheaper in absolute terms, but how many people listen to it vs watch that guy's show?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To make it fair you have to look at man-hours of entertainment .
Sure the radio may be cheaper in absolute terms , but how many people listen to it vs watch that guy 's show ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To make it fair you have to look at man-hours of entertainment.
Sure the radio may be cheaper in absolute terms, but how many people listen to it vs watch that guy's show?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343936</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31346896</id>
	<title>Oh thank goodness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267637700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's comforting to know that the USA isn't the only country with crazy conservatives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's comforting to know that the USA is n't the only country with crazy conservatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's comforting to know that the USA isn't the only country with crazy conservatives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31347176</id>
	<title>OK, I read TFA</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1267638720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And here is my own line of bullshit in the form of creative linking.</p><blockquote><div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James\_Murdoch\_(media\_executive)&amp;oldid=347530077" title="wikipedia.org">James Murdoch</a> [wikipedia.org], chief executive of the European and Asian operations of <a href="http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html" title="thenation.com">News Corp.</a> [thenation.com], which controls the British pay television company Sky, last year accused the BBC of a "land grab."</p><p>"The scale and scope of its current activities and future ambitions is chilling," Mr. Murdoch said in a speech.</p></div> </blockquote><p>But no one cares what he said, because we're talking about News Corp here, one of the world's ten largest media conglomerates, that gets to decide what you will see and hear if you get your "news" from <em>practically fucking anywhere</em>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And here is my own line of bullshit in the form of creative linking .
James Murdoch [ wikipedia.org ] , chief executive of the European and Asian operations of News Corp. [ thenation.com ] , which controls the British pay television company Sky , last year accused the BBC of a " land grab .
" " The scale and scope of its current activities and future ambitions is chilling , " Mr. Murdoch said in a speech .
But no one cares what he said , because we 're talking about News Corp here , one of the world 's ten largest media conglomerates , that gets to decide what you will see and hear if you get your " news " from practically fucking anywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here is my own line of bullshit in the form of creative linking.
James Murdoch [wikipedia.org], chief executive of the European and Asian operations of News Corp. [thenation.com], which controls the British pay television company Sky, last year accused the BBC of a "land grab.
""The scale and scope of its current activities and future ambitions is chilling," Mr. Murdoch said in a speech.
But no one cares what he said, because we're talking about News Corp here, one of the world's ten largest media conglomerates, that gets to decide what you will see and hear if you get your "news" from practically fucking anywhere.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343942</id>
	<title>they plan to cut one of the best internet radios</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267624080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Save 6music!</p><p>http://www.petition.fm/petitions/6musicasiannet/1000/</p><p>www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=278123313911</p><p>http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/mar/02/bbc-protests-change-mind-6music</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Save 6music ! http : //www.petition.fm/petitions/6musicasiannet/1000/www.facebook.com/group.php ? gid = 278123313911http : //www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/mar/02/bbc-protests-change-mind-6music</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Save 6music!http://www.petition.fm/petitions/6musicasiannet/1000/www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=278123313911http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/mar/02/bbc-protests-change-mind-6music</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343742</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>s122604</author>
	<datestamp>1267622880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's about time, godless commies...

Now, switch over to FOX news for the REAL story</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's about time , godless commies.. . Now , switch over to FOX news for the REAL story</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's about time, godless commies...

Now, switch over to FOX news for the REAL story</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344164</id>
	<title>Re:drop proprietary software?</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1267625520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>yeh they could use adacity too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)))))))</htmltext>
<tokenext>yeh they could use adacity too : - ) ) ) ) ) ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeh they could use adacity too :-)))))))</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344308</id>
	<title>BBC Trust happy to put Mark Thompson under bus</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1267626300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BBC Trust chairman Sir Michael Lyons has said "public concern" over 6 Music and the Asian Network may give the Trust a golden opportunity to throw director general Mark Thompson <a href="http://newstechnica.com/?p=1787" title="newstechnica.com">under a bus</a> [newstechnica.com].</p><p>Plans to close the stations, available via download, DAB Radio, tooth fillings, necromancy and the rantings of schizophrenic tramps on street corners, have outraged millions of Britons (reported by Sky News as 80,000), approximately five times as many as have mastered the technical wizardry and sequence of Masonic handshakes necessary to actually listen to 6 Music.</p><p>The music industry has also spoken out, though 6 Music staff thanked Lily Allen for her comments in support and asked her to please stop trying to be "helpful."</p><p>The proposals will go through a public consultation before the Trust tells Thompson he is a drooling incompetent and that the Tories won't like a crawler either. "Like Murdoch will actually give the twat the Sky job he's after," said Sir Michael. "Christ, why didn't we keep Dyke."</p><p>Mr Thompson is expected to meet with union leaders later, who say 600 people could lose their jobs. There is concern that Marc Riley could start making records again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BBC Trust chairman Sir Michael Lyons has said " public concern " over 6 Music and the Asian Network may give the Trust a golden opportunity to throw director general Mark Thompson under a bus [ newstechnica.com ] .Plans to close the stations , available via download , DAB Radio , tooth fillings , necromancy and the rantings of schizophrenic tramps on street corners , have outraged millions of Britons ( reported by Sky News as 80,000 ) , approximately five times as many as have mastered the technical wizardry and sequence of Masonic handshakes necessary to actually listen to 6 Music.The music industry has also spoken out , though 6 Music staff thanked Lily Allen for her comments in support and asked her to please stop trying to be " helpful .
" The proposals will go through a public consultation before the Trust tells Thompson he is a drooling incompetent and that the Tories wo n't like a crawler either .
" Like Murdoch will actually give the twat the Sky job he 's after , " said Sir Michael .
" Christ , why did n't we keep Dyke .
" Mr Thompson is expected to meet with union leaders later , who say 600 people could lose their jobs .
There is concern that Marc Riley could start making records again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BBC Trust chairman Sir Michael Lyons has said "public concern" over 6 Music and the Asian Network may give the Trust a golden opportunity to throw director general Mark Thompson under a bus [newstechnica.com].Plans to close the stations, available via download, DAB Radio, tooth fillings, necromancy and the rantings of schizophrenic tramps on street corners, have outraged millions of Britons (reported by Sky News as 80,000), approximately five times as many as have mastered the technical wizardry and sequence of Masonic handshakes necessary to actually listen to 6 Music.The music industry has also spoken out, though 6 Music staff thanked Lily Allen for her comments in support and asked her to please stop trying to be "helpful.
"The proposals will go through a public consultation before the Trust tells Thompson he is a drooling incompetent and that the Tories won't like a crawler either.
"Like Murdoch will actually give the twat the Sky job he's after," said Sir Michael.
"Christ, why didn't we keep Dyke.
"Mr Thompson is expected to meet with union leaders later, who say 600 people could lose their jobs.
There is concern that Marc Riley could start making records again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344178</id>
	<title>Re:this has been and will continue to be done wron</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267625580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BBC Three's operating cost is a third of that for the WHOLE of the Channel 4 group.  BBC Three wastes a lot of money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BBC Three 's operating cost is a third of that for the WHOLE of the Channel 4 group .
BBC Three wastes a lot of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BBC Three's operating cost is a third of that for the WHOLE of the Channel 4 group.
BBC Three wastes a lot of money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343324</id>
	<title>News on the BBC is not free (if you live in UK)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267619940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>James Murdoch can get bent.  The BBC News service is not free.  It's provided by the license fee so it is clearly not free - I've already pay for it.  I like the BBC News and would rather that than have to pay for the (more) biased reporting from any of his stable of rags.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>James Murdoch can get bent .
The BBC News service is not free .
It 's provided by the license fee so it is clearly not free - I 've already pay for it .
I like the BBC News and would rather that than have to pay for the ( more ) biased reporting from any of his stable of rags .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>James Murdoch can get bent.
The BBC News service is not free.
It's provided by the license fee so it is clearly not free - I've already pay for it.
I like the BBC News and would rather that than have to pay for the (more) biased reporting from any of his stable of rags.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343436</id>
	<title>Re:drop proprietary software?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267620900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I gather they're pretty open source in the backend already. They're historically a Solaris house, but a lot of their web presence is Linux, and about half the Perl programmers in London seem to work for the BBC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I gather they 're pretty open source in the backend already .
They 're historically a Solaris house , but a lot of their web presence is Linux , and about half the Perl programmers in London seem to work for the BBC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I gather they're pretty open source in the backend already.
They're historically a Solaris house, but a lot of their web presence is Linux, and about half the Perl programmers in London seem to work for the BBC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343552</id>
	<title>Re:I will happily give BBC more of my money...</title>
	<author>feepcreature</author>
	<datestamp>1267621560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If they would just start selling full episodes of Top Gear (amongst others) over here in the states...<br>--<br>In 2009 we confirmed yet again that indeed you can buy everything in New York City.</p></div></blockquote><p>Everything but Top Gear, it seems...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they would just start selling full episodes of Top Gear ( amongst others ) over here in the states...--In 2009 we confirmed yet again that indeed you can buy everything in New York City.Everything but Top Gear , it seems.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they would just start selling full episodes of Top Gear (amongst others) over here in the states...--In 2009 we confirmed yet again that indeed you can buy everything in New York City.Everything but Top Gear, it seems...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343828</id>
	<title>Re:Fuck you Rupert</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1267623420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's old; if we're lucky he won't be working to ruin the world in the name of whatever he stands for much longer.</p><p>Though we would have to be insanelly lucky to get better successors in his place...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's old ; if we 're lucky he wo n't be working to ruin the world in the name of whatever he stands for much longer.Though we would have to be insanelly lucky to get better successors in his place.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's old; if we're lucky he won't be working to ruin the world in the name of whatever he stands for much longer.Though we would have to be insanelly lucky to get better successors in his place...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343492</id>
	<title>whence cometh this God-given right to make us pay?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267621200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>last year James Murdoch criticized the BBC for providing 'free news' on the internet, making it 'incredibly hard for private news organizations to ask people to pay for their news.'</p></div></blockquote><p>So where does Murdoch's mythical right to extract money from the public come from? Or, more to the point, Murdoch's right to prevent anyone from competing with services he might prefer we pay for?</p><p>Especially when the public have already paid for the news to be gathered, and the BBC are only making available (at modest extra cost to the BBC) the information they have already been paid to gather - to the people who paid for it (even if it is also available to non-licence payers).</p><p>Isn't it the BBC's mission to inform and entertain? And why not do that via the internet as well as the airwaves?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>last year James Murdoch criticized the BBC for providing 'free news ' on the internet , making it 'incredibly hard for private news organizations to ask people to pay for their news .
'So where does Murdoch 's mythical right to extract money from the public come from ?
Or , more to the point , Murdoch 's right to prevent anyone from competing with services he might prefer we pay for ? Especially when the public have already paid for the news to be gathered , and the BBC are only making available ( at modest extra cost to the BBC ) the information they have already been paid to gather - to the people who paid for it ( even if it is also available to non-licence payers ) .Is n't it the BBC 's mission to inform and entertain ?
And why not do that via the internet as well as the airwaves ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>last year James Murdoch criticized the BBC for providing 'free news' on the internet, making it 'incredibly hard for private news organizations to ask people to pay for their news.
'So where does Murdoch's mythical right to extract money from the public come from?
Or, more to the point, Murdoch's right to prevent anyone from competing with services he might prefer we pay for?Especially when the public have already paid for the news to be gathered, and the BBC are only making available (at modest extra cost to the BBC) the information they have already been paid to gather - to the people who paid for it (even if it is also available to non-licence payers).Isn't it the BBC's mission to inform and entertain?
And why not do that via the internet as well as the airwaves?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344104</id>
	<title>So, you cant provide free services is that it.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1267625160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i thought the 'free market' capitalism was a system which let individuals and organizations charge whatever they want for their products and services.</p><p>turns out, it isnt so, everyone has to charge high enough so that private interests can make profits to satisfy themselves. it seems so, because some <b>prick</b> is able to come up and say that, like people are born to this world to to be profited from. reminds me of the middle ages and serf system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i thought the 'free market ' capitalism was a system which let individuals and organizations charge whatever they want for their products and services.turns out , it isnt so , everyone has to charge high enough so that private interests can make profits to satisfy themselves .
it seems so , because some prick is able to come up and say that , like people are born to this world to to be profited from .
reminds me of the middle ages and serf system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i thought the 'free market' capitalism was a system which let individuals and organizations charge whatever they want for their products and services.turns out, it isnt so, everyone has to charge high enough so that private interests can make profits to satisfy themselves.
it seems so, because some prick is able to come up and say that, like people are born to this world to to be profited from.
reminds me of the middle ages and serf system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344462</id>
	<title>Hey, Murdoch</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1267627080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I pay &pound;110 per year for my BBC services because I think they're better than your advertisment-supported (and hence profit-motivated) propaganda machines. You push the agenda your advertisers let you, and I don't buy it. The BBC has no advertisers, and is far more critical than any private and profit-oriented media company.<br> <br>Get bent, Murdoch. Stop trying to monetise me. I give my money and time to who <b>I</b> want to give it to, and that's <b>not</b> you.<br> <br> <b>Nor will it ever be.</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>I pay   110 per year for my BBC services because I think they 're better than your advertisment-supported ( and hence profit-motivated ) propaganda machines .
You push the agenda your advertisers let you , and I do n't buy it .
The BBC has no advertisers , and is far more critical than any private and profit-oriented media company .
Get bent , Murdoch .
Stop trying to monetise me .
I give my money and time to who I want to give it to , and that 's not you .
Nor will it ever be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I pay £110 per year for my BBC services because I think they're better than your advertisment-supported (and hence profit-motivated) propaganda machines.
You push the agenda your advertisers let you, and I don't buy it.
The BBC has no advertisers, and is far more critical than any private and profit-oriented media company.
Get bent, Murdoch.
Stop trying to monetise me.
I give my money and time to who I want to give it to, and that's not you.
Nor will it ever be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31348004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31354080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31354046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31351162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31345538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31346646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31362174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31345022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31345714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31346930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31346018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31346288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31353234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31346018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31348914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31347124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31347256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31346438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31345812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31345660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_03_1026238_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1026238.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31346018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31353234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31346930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1026238.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31346646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31351162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1026238.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31345022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344174
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1026238.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31354080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1026238.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31362174
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1026238.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1026238.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343798
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1026238.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31346288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31345714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1026238.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343450
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343500
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1026238.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1026238.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31345538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1026238.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1026238.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1026238.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31346458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1026238.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31345660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31346438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1026238.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343498
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31347256
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31347124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31354046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31348914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1026238.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343382
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1026238.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1026238.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31348004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31345812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31343426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1026238.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31347866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_03_1026238.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_03_1026238.31344064
</commentlist>
</conversation>
