<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_13_1727218</id>
	<title>Wells Fargo Bank Sues Itself</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1247506620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Extreme economic problems require extreme solutions, and Wells Fargo Bank has come up with a good one. <a href="http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/al-lewis-wells-fargo-bank-sues/">They have decided to sue themselves</a>. Wells Fargo holds the first and second mortgages on a condominium that is going into foreclosure. As holder of the first, they are suing all other lien holders, including the holder of the second, which is Wells Fargo. It gets better. The company has hired a lawyer to defend itself against its own lawsuit. The defense lawyer even filed this answer to the complaint, "Defendant admits that it is the owner and holder of a mortgage encumbering the subject real property. All other allegations of the complaint are denied." On the website <em>The Consumer Warning Network</em>, Angie Moreschi wrote: "We've apparently reached the perfect storm for complete and utter idiocy by some banks trying to foreclose on homes."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Extreme economic problems require extreme solutions , and Wells Fargo Bank has come up with a good one .
They have decided to sue themselves .
Wells Fargo holds the first and second mortgages on a condominium that is going into foreclosure .
As holder of the first , they are suing all other lien holders , including the holder of the second , which is Wells Fargo .
It gets better .
The company has hired a lawyer to defend itself against its own lawsuit .
The defense lawyer even filed this answer to the complaint , " Defendant admits that it is the owner and holder of a mortgage encumbering the subject real property .
All other allegations of the complaint are denied .
" On the website The Consumer Warning Network , Angie Moreschi wrote : " We 've apparently reached the perfect storm for complete and utter idiocy by some banks trying to foreclose on homes .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Extreme economic problems require extreme solutions, and Wells Fargo Bank has come up with a good one.
They have decided to sue themselves.
Wells Fargo holds the first and second mortgages on a condominium that is going into foreclosure.
As holder of the first, they are suing all other lien holders, including the holder of the second, which is Wells Fargo.
It gets better.
The company has hired a lawyer to defend itself against its own lawsuit.
The defense lawyer even filed this answer to the complaint, "Defendant admits that it is the owner and holder of a mortgage encumbering the subject real property.
All other allegations of the complaint are denied.
" On the website The Consumer Warning Network, Angie Moreschi wrote: "We've apparently reached the perfect storm for complete and utter idiocy by some banks trying to foreclose on homes.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680015</id>
	<title>Re:Florida requires it?!</title>
	<author>hondo77</author>
	<datestamp>1247512140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Since they have 80/20 double mortgage, they have to sue themselves.</p></div><p>Which would be fine except that, as defendants, they are denying their own (plaintiff's) claims. That's the idiocy part.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since they have 80/20 double mortgage , they have to sue themselves.Which would be fine except that , as defendants , they are denying their own ( plaintiff 's ) claims .
That 's the idiocy part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since they have 80/20 double mortgage, they have to sue themselves.Which would be fine except that, as defendants, they are denying their own (plaintiff's) claims.
That's the idiocy part.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681335</id>
	<title>Life imitates art</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247517540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Nobody move or the nigger gets it!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Nobody move or the nigger gets it !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Nobody move or the nigger gets it!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684059</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1247486760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Referencing both 2001 <b>and</b> Idiocracy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Referencing both 2001 and Idiocracy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Referencing both 2001 and Idiocracy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28693523</id>
	<title>Positive Wells Fargo experience</title>
	<author>austin987</author>
	<datestamp>1247596620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps I'm the only one, but I've had Wells Fargo for ~4 years, and it's been great.</p><p>The only bad experience I had was my checkbook was stolen while I was overseas (the checkbook was at the home I share with several guys, there was a party, strangers show up, college life etc.). I didn't check my balance much while overseas, and the dollar was weak, so didn't think much of it when my balance was low. When I got back to the states I noticed that there was a check written to one of my roommates for $75, which I didn't write. I confronted him about it, he denied it. Long story short, someone had stolen my checkbook and *HIS* debit card. They were then writing checks from my account to his name, depositing it into his account (with the debit card as ID), then withdrawing the money from an ATM (he was moronic and wrote down his PIN by the debit card).</p><p>After reporting to Wells Fargo, I was given some affidavits to sign, saying I didn't authorize the checks, under penalty of perjury, etc. I had a new checking account and the $900 that was stolen (plus $70 in overdrafts they had caused) refunded to me in about 3 days, with only about 45 minutes of work on my end.</p><p>Handled very professionally, I'd say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps I 'm the only one , but I 've had Wells Fargo for ~ 4 years , and it 's been great.The only bad experience I had was my checkbook was stolen while I was overseas ( the checkbook was at the home I share with several guys , there was a party , strangers show up , college life etc. ) .
I did n't check my balance much while overseas , and the dollar was weak , so did n't think much of it when my balance was low .
When I got back to the states I noticed that there was a check written to one of my roommates for $ 75 , which I did n't write .
I confronted him about it , he denied it .
Long story short , someone had stolen my checkbook and * HIS * debit card .
They were then writing checks from my account to his name , depositing it into his account ( with the debit card as ID ) , then withdrawing the money from an ATM ( he was moronic and wrote down his PIN by the debit card ) .After reporting to Wells Fargo , I was given some affidavits to sign , saying I did n't authorize the checks , under penalty of perjury , etc .
I had a new checking account and the $ 900 that was stolen ( plus $ 70 in overdrafts they had caused ) refunded to me in about 3 days , with only about 45 minutes of work on my end.Handled very professionally , I 'd say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps I'm the only one, but I've had Wells Fargo for ~4 years, and it's been great.The only bad experience I had was my checkbook was stolen while I was overseas (the checkbook was at the home I share with several guys, there was a party, strangers show up, college life etc.).
I didn't check my balance much while overseas, and the dollar was weak, so didn't think much of it when my balance was low.
When I got back to the states I noticed that there was a check written to one of my roommates for $75, which I didn't write.
I confronted him about it, he denied it.
Long story short, someone had stolen my checkbook and *HIS* debit card.
They were then writing checks from my account to his name, depositing it into his account (with the debit card as ID), then withdrawing the money from an ATM (he was moronic and wrote down his PIN by the debit card).After reporting to Wells Fargo, I was given some affidavits to sign, saying I didn't authorize the checks, under penalty of perjury, etc.
I had a new checking account and the $900 that was stolen (plus $70 in overdrafts they had caused) refunded to me in about 3 days, with only about 45 minutes of work on my end.Handled very professionally, I'd say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679881</id>
	<title>Re:Latest news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247511720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope so.  I just bought 2000 shares of Sealy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope so .
I just bought 2000 shares of Sealy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope so.
I just bought 2000 shares of Sealy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679749</id>
	<title>Lewis Black</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247511300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm... do we have a replacement for the Starbucks across from the Starbucks?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm... do we have a replacement for the Starbucks across from the Starbucks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm... do we have a replacement for the Starbucks across from the Starbucks?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28685307</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247496360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So they foreclosed on an investment house that you couldn't afford. Boo hoo...</p><p>What I actually learned from your post: Wells Fargo was kind enough to let your payments slip by 3 months as long as you paid them interest. They gave you time to make the payments, you never organized your finances such that you could repay them properly, so they foreclosed. How does this story reflect poorly on the bank?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So they foreclosed on an investment house that you could n't afford .
Boo hoo...What I actually learned from your post : Wells Fargo was kind enough to let your payments slip by 3 months as long as you paid them interest .
They gave you time to make the payments , you never organized your finances such that you could repay them properly , so they foreclosed .
How does this story reflect poorly on the bank ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they foreclosed on an investment house that you couldn't afford.
Boo hoo...What I actually learned from your post: Wells Fargo was kind enough to let your payments slip by 3 months as long as you paid them interest.
They gave you time to make the payments, you never organized your finances such that you could repay them properly, so they foreclosed.
How does this story reflect poorly on the bank?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680953</id>
	<title>Re:You can Do that?</title>
	<author>uberjack</author>
	<datestamp>1247515920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then how will you pay your bonuses?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then how will you pay your bonuses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then how will you pay your bonuses?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681119</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>Holi</author>
	<datestamp>1247516640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What part of human history suggests we are capable of governing ourselves with common sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What part of human history suggests we are capable of governing ourselves with common sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What part of human history suggests we are capable of governing ourselves with common sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28686949</id>
	<title>Re:You can Do that?</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1247509800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this case the lawyers really are the only winners!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case the lawyers really are the only winners !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case the lawyers really are the only winners!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681267</id>
	<title>Re:Stupidity countdown</title>
	<author>Repossessed</author>
	<datestamp>1247517240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot the current homeowner, who was dumb enough to do business with Wells Fargo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot the current homeowner , who was dumb enough to do business with Wells Fargo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot the current homeowner, who was dumb enough to do business with Wells Fargo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680207</id>
	<title>Yeah...</title>
	<author>nizo</author>
	<datestamp>1247512800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is exactly why I don't bank with Wells Fargo anymore. Even the simplest tasks seemed to take them forever to fix. Apparently I should have asked them to sue themselves to fix day-to-day problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly why I do n't bank with Wells Fargo anymore .
Even the simplest tasks seemed to take them forever to fix .
Apparently I should have asked them to sue themselves to fix day-to-day problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly why I don't bank with Wells Fargo anymore.
Even the simplest tasks seemed to take them forever to fix.
Apparently I should have asked them to sue themselves to fix day-to-day problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679949</id>
	<title>Follow the (Insurance) Money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247511960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need to follow the money.  I suspect they are following the legal steps to cover their a$$es.  Then, should they fail to recover the 2nd liens, they can invoke their in$urance policies and recover their lo$$es from the insurance carriers.<br>Back in the late 90's I couldn't sell my house and went thru bankruptcy (we needed to leave the area).  The bank wouldn't negotiate a short sale.  If they did, they would have taken a loss, but because we passed thru bankruptcy, they could recover the full balance of our mortgage from the insurance company.  The PMI that cost me several thou$and at closing paid out many times over for the bank.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to follow the money .
I suspect they are following the legal steps to cover their a $ $ es .
Then , should they fail to recover the 2nd liens , they can invoke their in $ urance policies and recover their lo $ $ es from the insurance carriers.Back in the late 90 's I could n't sell my house and went thru bankruptcy ( we needed to leave the area ) .
The bank would n't negotiate a short sale .
If they did , they would have taken a loss , but because we passed thru bankruptcy , they could recover the full balance of our mortgage from the insurance company .
The PMI that cost me several thou $ and at closing paid out many times over for the bank .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to follow the money.
I suspect they are following the legal steps to cover their a$$es.
Then, should they fail to recover the 2nd liens, they can invoke their in$urance policies and recover their lo$$es from the insurance carriers.Back in the late 90's I couldn't sell my house and went thru bankruptcy (we needed to leave the area).
The bank wouldn't negotiate a short sale.
If they did, they would have taken a loss, but because we passed thru bankruptcy, they could recover the full balance of our mortgage from the insurance company.
The PMI that cost me several thou$and at closing paid out many times over for the bank.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679755</id>
	<title>Eh</title>
	<author>BSDevil</author>
	<datestamp>1247511360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's actually more common than you'd think. The meat of the story is really this line:<blockquote><div><p>As holder of the first, Wells Fargo is suing <b>all other lien holders</b>, including the holder of the second, which is itself.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Wells Fargo (holder of the senior mortgage) is trying to clear out all the subsidiary mortgage interests so that it can sell the property. In the process of doing so, it has to sue itself for record-keeping purposes - if I'm going to buy some property, I want a clear case record showing that all existing claims have been discharged.

What will likely happen, however, is that junior Wells Fargo will settle with senior Wells Fargo, after doing some filings to show that it's done it's due dilligence in trying to protect it's fiduciary interest in the property.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's actually more common than you 'd think .
The meat of the story is really this line : As holder of the first , Wells Fargo is suing all other lien holders , including the holder of the second , which is itself .
Wells Fargo ( holder of the senior mortgage ) is trying to clear out all the subsidiary mortgage interests so that it can sell the property .
In the process of doing so , it has to sue itself for record-keeping purposes - if I 'm going to buy some property , I want a clear case record showing that all existing claims have been discharged .
What will likely happen , however , is that junior Wells Fargo will settle with senior Wells Fargo , after doing some filings to show that it 's done it 's due dilligence in trying to protect it 's fiduciary interest in the property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's actually more common than you'd think.
The meat of the story is really this line:As holder of the first, Wells Fargo is suing all other lien holders, including the holder of the second, which is itself.
Wells Fargo (holder of the senior mortgage) is trying to clear out all the subsidiary mortgage interests so that it can sell the property.
In the process of doing so, it has to sue itself for record-keeping purposes - if I'm going to buy some property, I want a clear case record showing that all existing claims have been discharged.
What will likely happen, however, is that junior Wells Fargo will settle with senior Wells Fargo, after doing some filings to show that it's done it's due dilligence in trying to protect it's fiduciary interest in the property.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681755</id>
	<title>Re:seriously?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247475900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This sounds like something out of HitchHikers or a Python sketch.</p></div><p>How about Kids in the Hall?</p><p><a href="http://www.kithfan.org/work/transcripts/three/sexhimself.html" title="kithfan.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.kithfan.org/work/transcripts/three/sexhimself.html</a> [kithfan.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like something out of HitchHikers or a Python sketch.How about Kids in the Hall ? http : //www.kithfan.org/work/transcripts/three/sexhimself.html [ kithfan.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like something out of HitchHikers or a Python sketch.How about Kids in the Hall?http://www.kithfan.org/work/transcripts/three/sexhimself.html [kithfan.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679597</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>tylersoze</author>
	<datestamp>1247510820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah I don't know what's going on at Well Fargo. I have an auto loan through the company and they just sent me a letter telling me that I better make sure I have them listed on my insurance as something or other or they would purchase their own insurance and add it to the loan amount. That's the first time I've ever received anything like that on any car loan I've taken out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah I do n't know what 's going on at Well Fargo .
I have an auto loan through the company and they just sent me a letter telling me that I better make sure I have them listed on my insurance as something or other or they would purchase their own insurance and add it to the loan amount .
That 's the first time I 've ever received anything like that on any car loan I 've taken out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah I don't know what's going on at Well Fargo.
I have an auto loan through the company and they just sent me a letter telling me that I better make sure I have them listed on my insurance as something or other or they would purchase their own insurance and add it to the loan amount.
That's the first time I've ever received anything like that on any car loan I've taken out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681413</id>
	<title>Re:You can Do that?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247517840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>best post I've read in a while!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>best post I 've read in a while !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>best post I've read in a while!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682429</id>
	<title>Re:seriously?!</title>
	<author>SputnikPanic</author>
	<datestamp>1247478840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To me it sounds like one of the signs that our society has become a big game of Jenga.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To me it sounds like one of the signs that our society has become a big game of Jenga .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me it sounds like one of the signs that our society has become a big game of Jenga.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679779</id>
	<title>I hearby mod myself down!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247511360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This recursive post is totally off-topic!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This recursive post is totally off-topic !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This recursive post is totally off-topic!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681765</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1247475900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Introducing complexity into the areas around one's job is an excellent way to prevent yourself from being moved from that job. If you're someone who's still heading up the corporate ladder, that's a foolish thing to do (because that effect prevents you from being promoted), but once you reach the point where the Peter Principle starts being a factor, this becomes known as "job security". It's one of those instances where what's good for an employee is bad for a company, and it's pretty close to impossible to prevent in a large organization.</p><p>This goes for code as well: the best programmers are the ones who simplify their code as much as possible, throwing away bad code left and right. The worst programmers are the ones who use incredibly complex processes to do incredibly simple tasks (these folks are even worse than programmers who produce no code at all because of the damage they do to good programmers' productivity).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Introducing complexity into the areas around one 's job is an excellent way to prevent yourself from being moved from that job .
If you 're someone who 's still heading up the corporate ladder , that 's a foolish thing to do ( because that effect prevents you from being promoted ) , but once you reach the point where the Peter Principle starts being a factor , this becomes known as " job security " .
It 's one of those instances where what 's good for an employee is bad for a company , and it 's pretty close to impossible to prevent in a large organization.This goes for code as well : the best programmers are the ones who simplify their code as much as possible , throwing away bad code left and right .
The worst programmers are the ones who use incredibly complex processes to do incredibly simple tasks ( these folks are even worse than programmers who produce no code at all because of the damage they do to good programmers ' productivity ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Introducing complexity into the areas around one's job is an excellent way to prevent yourself from being moved from that job.
If you're someone who's still heading up the corporate ladder, that's a foolish thing to do (because that effect prevents you from being promoted), but once you reach the point where the Peter Principle starts being a factor, this becomes known as "job security".
It's one of those instances where what's good for an employee is bad for a company, and it's pretty close to impossible to prevent in a large organization.This goes for code as well: the best programmers are the ones who simplify their code as much as possible, throwing away bad code left and right.
The worst programmers are the ones who use incredibly complex processes to do incredibly simple tasks (these folks are even worse than programmers who produce no code at all because of the damage they do to good programmers' productivity).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28688755</id>
	<title>Re:Stupidity countdown</title>
	<author>Jedi Alec</author>
	<datestamp>1247574540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>4) Florida State government</i></p><p><i>For writing a law that requires a bank to sue itself.<br></i></p><p>For some reason the most important part keeps falling off these lists...</p><p>0) The good people of Florida, for electing the kind of people that form said government.</p><p>That'll be all folks, keep blaming the boogeyman!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>4 ) Florida State governmentFor writing a law that requires a bank to sue itself.For some reason the most important part keeps falling off these lists...0 ) The good people of Florida , for electing the kind of people that form said government.That 'll be all folks , keep blaming the boogeyman !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4) Florida State governmentFor writing a law that requires a bank to sue itself.For some reason the most important part keeps falling off these lists...0) The good people of Florida, for electing the kind of people that form said government.That'll be all folks, keep blaming the boogeyman!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28683143</id>
	<title>It's part of the cunning plan</title>
	<author>Platinumrat</author>
	<datestamp>1247481660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the OP it says it all "As holder of the first, they are suing all other lien holders, including the holder of the second, which is Wells Fargo.".  If they're successful in getting the courts to agree that that have to cough up to themselves, then it's a simple step to get the other 2nd holders to cough up as well.
IANAL</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the OP it says it all " As holder of the first , they are suing all other lien holders , including the holder of the second , which is Wells Fargo. " .
If they 're successful in getting the courts to agree that that have to cough up to themselves , then it 's a simple step to get the other 2nd holders to cough up as well .
IANAL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the OP it says it all "As holder of the first, they are suing all other lien holders, including the holder of the second, which is Wells Fargo.".
If they're successful in getting the courts to agree that that have to cough up to themselves, then it's a simple step to get the other 2nd holders to cough up as well.
IANAL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28685659</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>iamhassi</author>
	<datestamp>1247499540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Actually, for a 30 year mortgage at current interest rates, 1 years payments (if you include PMI and tax payments to an escrow account) would be around 1/10th the cost of the house. I'd be guessing the original poster didn't get the sweetest interest deal either, since it was an "investment" property, and banks tend to consider those higher risks.

It's still a stretch, but in some areas of the country, if you add vandalism to it, it's at least plausible."</i>
<br> <br>
Yep, got screwed buying it at the height of the market bubble, and the vandalism was the copper pipes (copper's valuable, or it was) and A/C sitting outside.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Actually , for a 30 year mortgage at current interest rates , 1 years payments ( if you include PMI and tax payments to an escrow account ) would be around 1/10th the cost of the house .
I 'd be guessing the original poster did n't get the sweetest interest deal either , since it was an " investment " property , and banks tend to consider those higher risks .
It 's still a stretch , but in some areas of the country , if you add vandalism to it , it 's at least plausible .
" Yep , got screwed buying it at the height of the market bubble , and the vandalism was the copper pipes ( copper 's valuable , or it was ) and A/C sitting outside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Actually, for a 30 year mortgage at current interest rates, 1 years payments (if you include PMI and tax payments to an escrow account) would be around 1/10th the cost of the house.
I'd be guessing the original poster didn't get the sweetest interest deal either, since it was an "investment" property, and banks tend to consider those higher risks.
It's still a stretch, but in some areas of the country, if you add vandalism to it, it's at least plausible.
"
 
Yep, got screwed buying it at the height of the market bubble, and the vandalism was the copper pipes (copper's valuable, or it was) and A/C sitting outside.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28683221</id>
	<title>Realtor Law for ID10T's</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1247482140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When the Buyer of the Property defaults on their loan, the holder of the Title property,(which was the collateral in case of default), notifies the Lean Holder and the 4th, 3th, and 2nd TD holder's.  These people have a chance to step in and take ownership of the property by paying the outstanding debt to the Lean Holder.  If this cannot be done, in other words, no one wants the property, the Lean Holder "takes the Title of ownership". The title was held as "collateral" for the debt.  If no one steps up to resolve the debt, the Lean Holder now owns the property.  Nothing magical here.  As for suing itself, I can only hope it goes on the corporations Credit Report.  I can see why President Obama helped the banks so that BRIC nations wouldn't screw up this mess even more.  But who ever said that these businesses were to big to go under is full of foundation-less nativity.  When can we STOP "helping" these suicidal cultures that still think its OK to defecate in their potables before drinking?</htmltext>
<tokenext>When the Buyer of the Property defaults on their loan , the holder of the Title property , ( which was the collateral in case of default ) , notifies the Lean Holder and the 4th , 3th , and 2nd TD holder 's .
These people have a chance to step in and take ownership of the property by paying the outstanding debt to the Lean Holder .
If this can not be done , in other words , no one wants the property , the Lean Holder " takes the Title of ownership " .
The title was held as " collateral " for the debt .
If no one steps up to resolve the debt , the Lean Holder now owns the property .
Nothing magical here .
As for suing itself , I can only hope it goes on the corporations Credit Report .
I can see why President Obama helped the banks so that BRIC nations would n't screw up this mess even more .
But who ever said that these businesses were to big to go under is full of foundation-less nativity .
When can we STOP " helping " these suicidal cultures that still think its OK to defecate in their potables before drinking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the Buyer of the Property defaults on their loan, the holder of the Title property,(which was the collateral in case of default), notifies the Lean Holder and the 4th, 3th, and 2nd TD holder's.
These people have a chance to step in and take ownership of the property by paying the outstanding debt to the Lean Holder.
If this cannot be done, in other words, no one wants the property, the Lean Holder "takes the Title of ownership".
The title was held as "collateral" for the debt.
If no one steps up to resolve the debt, the Lean Holder now owns the property.
Nothing magical here.
As for suing itself, I can only hope it goes on the corporations Credit Report.
I can see why President Obama helped the banks so that BRIC nations wouldn't screw up this mess even more.
But who ever said that these businesses were to big to go under is full of foundation-less nativity.
When can we STOP "helping" these suicidal cultures that still think its OK to defecate in their potables before drinking?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680067</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>castironpigeon</author>
	<datestamp>1247512380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not Wells Fargo we ought to be upset at, it's the legal system that's so borked it requires a company to sue itself. Can we burn the law books yet and just govern ourselves by common sense?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not Wells Fargo we ought to be upset at , it 's the legal system that 's so borked it requires a company to sue itself .
Can we burn the law books yet and just govern ourselves by common sense ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not Wells Fargo we ought to be upset at, it's the legal system that's so borked it requires a company to sue itself.
Can we burn the law books yet and just govern ourselves by common sense?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684451</id>
	<title>Re:seriously?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247489160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't that from the Rutles?  Didn't Stig sue himself?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't that from the Rutles ?
Did n't Stig sue himself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't that from the Rutles?
Didn't Stig sue himself?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679601</id>
	<title>Schrodinger's Bank</title>
	<author>XiX36</author>
	<datestamp>1247510820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>They will exist in both a state of winning and losing this case regardless of the outcome.  Cool! I would ask why this stupidity is allowed to continue but then I remember that people like this thought credit default swaps were a pretty neat idea. . .</htmltext>
<tokenext>They will exist in both a state of winning and losing this case regardless of the outcome .
Cool ! I would ask why this stupidity is allowed to continue but then I remember that people like this thought credit default swaps were a pretty neat idea .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They will exist in both a state of winning and losing this case regardless of the outcome.
Cool! I would ask why this stupidity is allowed to continue but then I remember that people like this thought credit default swaps were a pretty neat idea.
. .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681283</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>fishbowl</author>
	<datestamp>1247517300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;much of the $$$ was spent on purchasing and moving to a new house.</p><p>Neat trick, defaulting on a mortgage and getting a new one.  Some people can't get a mortgage even with good credit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; much of the $ $ $ was spent on purchasing and moving to a new house.Neat trick , defaulting on a mortgage and getting a new one .
Some people ca n't get a mortgage even with good credit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;much of the $$$ was spent on purchasing and moving to a new house.Neat trick, defaulting on a mortgage and getting a new one.
Some people can't get a mortgage even with good credit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682857</id>
	<title>Also in technology</title>
	<author>Mr\_Silver</author>
	<datestamp>1247480520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This kind of thing happens in technology too.</p><p>Unfortunately my Google Fu is failing but I distinctly remember a long time ago the music industry suing manufacturers of CD writers claiming that they facilitated copyright infringement.</p><p>Sony, as both a content provider and hardware manufacturer, managed to end being in both camps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This kind of thing happens in technology too.Unfortunately my Google Fu is failing but I distinctly remember a long time ago the music industry suing manufacturers of CD writers claiming that they facilitated copyright infringement.Sony , as both a content provider and hardware manufacturer , managed to end being in both camps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This kind of thing happens in technology too.Unfortunately my Google Fu is failing but I distinctly remember a long time ago the music industry suing manufacturers of CD writers claiming that they facilitated copyright infringement.Sony, as both a content provider and hardware manufacturer, managed to end being in both camps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680231</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>ptbarnett</author>
	<datestamp>1247512920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I have an auto loan through the company and they just sent me a letter telling me that I better make sure I have them listed on my insurance as something or other or they would purchase their own insurance and add it to the loan amount.</p></div><p>

It's somewhere in the fine print of your loan agreement:  as the secured creditor, the bank wants to be sure they are the first beneficiary of any payment from your insurance company if the vehicle is totaled.</p><p>

I'm not sure why it's the first time you've seen it:  it's always been a requirement for vehicles that I financed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an auto loan through the company and they just sent me a letter telling me that I better make sure I have them listed on my insurance as something or other or they would purchase their own insurance and add it to the loan amount .
It 's somewhere in the fine print of your loan agreement : as the secured creditor , the bank wants to be sure they are the first beneficiary of any payment from your insurance company if the vehicle is totaled .
I 'm not sure why it 's the first time you 've seen it : it 's always been a requirement for vehicles that I financed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I have an auto loan through the company and they just sent me a letter telling me that I better make sure I have them listed on my insurance as something or other or they would purchase their own insurance and add it to the loan amount.
It's somewhere in the fine print of your loan agreement:  as the secured creditor, the bank wants to be sure they are the first beneficiary of any payment from your insurance company if the vehicle is totaled.
I'm not sure why it's the first time you've seen it:  it's always been a requirement for vehicles that I financed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679645</id>
	<title>On a serious note</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247511000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this is the clinical view banks take when foreclosing against themselves what hope is there for the common man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is the clinical view banks take when foreclosing against themselves what hope is there for the common man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is the clinical view banks take when foreclosing against themselves what hope is there for the common man.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681053</id>
	<title>Quantum corporation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247516340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wells will both the winner and looser at the same time, making it a quantum corporation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wells will both the winner and looser at the same time , making it a quantum corporation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wells will both the winner and looser at the same time, making it a quantum corporation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682727</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>alx5000</author>
	<datestamp>1247480040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the stupidity, economist!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the stupidity , economist !
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the stupidity, economist!
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681499</id>
	<title>The Rutles</title>
	<author>BenSchuarmer</author>
	<datestamp>1247518200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"In the midst of all this public bickering, "Let it Rot" was released as a film, an album, and a lawsuit. In 1970, Dirk sued Stig, Nasty, and Barry; Barry sued Dirk, Nasty, and Stig; Nasty sued Barry, Dirk, and Stig; and Stig sued himself accidentally. It was the beginning of a golden era for lawyers, but for the Rutles, live on a London rooftop, it was the beginning of the end."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" In the midst of all this public bickering , " Let it Rot " was released as a film , an album , and a lawsuit .
In 1970 , Dirk sued Stig , Nasty , and Barry ; Barry sued Dirk , Nasty , and Stig ; Nasty sued Barry , Dirk , and Stig ; and Stig sued himself accidentally .
It was the beginning of a golden era for lawyers , but for the Rutles , live on a London rooftop , it was the beginning of the end .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In the midst of all this public bickering, "Let it Rot" was released as a film, an album, and a lawsuit.
In 1970, Dirk sued Stig, Nasty, and Barry; Barry sued Dirk, Nasty, and Stig; Nasty sued Barry, Dirk, and Stig; and Stig sued himself accidentally.
It was the beginning of a golden era for lawyers, but for the Rutles, live on a London rooftop, it was the beginning of the end.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681005</id>
	<title>Mod Parent Up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247516160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I figure i'm between 1 and 2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I figure i 'm between 1 and 2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I figure i'm between 1 and 2.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679991</id>
	<title>Re:You can Do that?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247512080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And when I can't pay up, I'll just ask the government for another bailout to pay the attorney fees and damages!<br> <br>

When a bailed out bank sues itself, we lose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And when I ca n't pay up , I 'll just ask the government for another bailout to pay the attorney fees and damages !
When a bailed out bank sues itself , we lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And when I can't pay up, I'll just ask the government for another bailout to pay the attorney fees and damages!
When a bailed out bank sues itself, we lose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28686423</id>
	<title>In Soviet Russia..</title>
	<author>bronney</author>
	<datestamp>1247505060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Motherland su..... wait..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Motherland su..... wait. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Motherland su..... wait..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680899</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247515740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wouldn't hold your breath.  I hear that Wells Fargo is being totally unreasonable and making it impossible to settle this lawsuit out of court.  They just can't find any points of agreement at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't hold your breath .
I hear that Wells Fargo is being totally unreasonable and making it impossible to settle this lawsuit out of court .
They just ca n't find any points of agreement at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't hold your breath.
I hear that Wells Fargo is being totally unreasonable and making it impossible to settle this lawsuit out of court.
They just can't find any points of agreement at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680011</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>tmosley</author>
	<datestamp>1247512140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I certainly wouldn't, but my alternate personality thinks you're nuts!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I certainly would n't , but my alternate personality thinks you 're nuts !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I certainly wouldn't, but my alternate personality thinks you're nuts!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682919</id>
	<title>This is neither original nor funny</title>
	<author>microbee</author>
	<datestamp>1247480820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same thing has happened with the federal government.</p><p>Seriously, this is no joke. It's called Conflict of Interest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same thing has happened with the federal government.Seriously , this is no joke .
It 's called Conflict of Interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same thing has happened with the federal government.Seriously, this is no joke.
It's called Conflict of Interest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682975</id>
	<title>Re:The Hack is comming from your own Machine!!!!</title>
	<author>nonamez</author>
	<datestamp>1247481000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is just proof that in any lawsuit, the only people to always win are the lawyers.

<a href="http://www.netbilen.com/" title="netbilen.com" rel="nofollow">Forum</a> [netbilen.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just proof that in any lawsuit , the only people to always win are the lawyers .
Forum [ netbilen.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just proof that in any lawsuit, the only people to always win are the lawyers.
Forum [netbilen.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681083</id>
	<title>You know when the economy is getting bad when...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247516460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lawyers start coming up with these kinds of cases.  Of course all the good government jobs for lawyers are taken already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lawyers start coming up with these kinds of cases .
Of course all the good government jobs for lawyers are taken already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lawyers start coming up with these kinds of cases.
Of course all the good government jobs for lawyers are taken already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680375</id>
	<title>nice..</title>
	<author>josepha48</author>
	<datestamp>1247513340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ok, so anyone here still not understand why the banks are so screwed up and why america is as screwed up as it is financially right now?  Our corporate leaders are a bunch of idiots, who can't tell the difference between a hole in the wall and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. well if you need me to finish that statement, then you're right there with them!</htmltext>
<tokenext>ok , so anyone here still not understand why the banks are so screwed up and why america is as screwed up as it is financially right now ?
Our corporate leaders are a bunch of idiots , who ca n't tell the difference between a hole in the wall and .. well if you need me to finish that statement , then you 're right there with them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ok, so anyone here still not understand why the banks are so screwed up and why america is as screwed up as it is financially right now?
Our corporate leaders are a bunch of idiots, who can't tell the difference between a hole in the wall and .. well if you need me to finish that statement, then you're right there with them!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680631</id>
	<title>Why make fun of the bank?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1247514480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government made the loony laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government made the loony laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government made the loony laws.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679607</id>
	<title>I spent 5 minutes</title>
	<author>Blixinator</author>
	<datestamp>1247510880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Trying to figure out what an Idle article was doing in YRO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Trying to figure out what an Idle article was doing in YRO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trying to figure out what an Idle article was doing in YRO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28685783</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>Cthefuture</author>
	<datestamp>1247500200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The board of the non-profit has now passed a resolution that we will never do any business with Wells Fargo ever again, nor will we maintain a bank account with Bank of America or any other bank that accepted TARP funds.</p></div><p>Anyone know of a good mortgage company that did not accept bailout funds?  Bank of America bought my mortgage company and I want to switch to someone else.  I have been looking around but I don't know which companies suck.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The board of the non-profit has now passed a resolution that we will never do any business with Wells Fargo ever again , nor will we maintain a bank account with Bank of America or any other bank that accepted TARP funds.Anyone know of a good mortgage company that did not accept bailout funds ?
Bank of America bought my mortgage company and I want to switch to someone else .
I have been looking around but I do n't know which companies suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The board of the non-profit has now passed a resolution that we will never do any business with Wells Fargo ever again, nor will we maintain a bank account with Bank of America or any other bank that accepted TARP funds.Anyone know of a good mortgage company that did not accept bailout funds?
Bank of America bought my mortgage company and I want to switch to someone else.
I have been looking around but I don't know which companies suck.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684691</id>
	<title>Re:Florida requires it?!</title>
	<author>JasonTik</author>
	<datestamp>1247490720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As opposed to all other lien holders.  Well, that's Florida's fault.  Who wants to move to Florida and have some fun?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As opposed to all other lien holders .
Well , that 's Florida 's fault .
Who wants to move to Florida and have some fun ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As opposed to all other lien holders.
Well, that's Florida's fault.
Who wants to move to Florida and have some fun?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682245</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1247478000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's only confusing if you assume that corporations are one monolithic entity.</p></div></blockquote><p>Which, legally, they are: a single, distinct legal person. That's, in fact, the whole point of a corporation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's only confusing if you assume that corporations are one monolithic entity.Which , legally , they are : a single , distinct legal person .
That 's , in fact , the whole point of a corporation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's only confusing if you assume that corporations are one monolithic entity.Which, legally, they are: a single, distinct legal person.
That's, in fact, the whole point of a corporation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28685631</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247499360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Something's not adding up in your story."</i>
<br> <br>
I completely agree!  The whole thing never made sense to me either<br> <br>
<i>"How is it that in 2 years and 3 months, you couldn't come up with the interest on the 3 month's payments?"</i>
<br> <br>
I don't recall explaining how Wells Fargo calculated interest, so how would you know if it made sense or not?
<br> <br>
<i>" you were refunded 1 year's worth of payments, and that the house was put on the market for 1 year's worth of house payments. I'm going to have to call B.S. on this one."</i>
<br> <br>
Like I said, I don't understand it either.
<br> <br>
<i>"home went back on the market for 1/30 of its original price is a little much."</i>
<br> <br>
wait... what?  Do you think they take the value of your house, divide it by 30 years, and that's what they charge you per year?  Wow that'd be great, wouldn't it?  So a $300,000 house divided by 30 would be 10 grand a year, or a $833/mo payment.  Everyone would own million dollar houses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Something 's not adding up in your story .
" I completely agree !
The whole thing never made sense to me either " How is it that in 2 years and 3 months , you could n't come up with the interest on the 3 month 's payments ?
" I do n't recall explaining how Wells Fargo calculated interest , so how would you know if it made sense or not ?
" you were refunded 1 year 's worth of payments , and that the house was put on the market for 1 year 's worth of house payments .
I 'm going to have to call B.S .
on this one .
" Like I said , I do n't understand it either .
" home went back on the market for 1/30 of its original price is a little much .
" wait... what ? Do you think they take the value of your house , divide it by 30 years , and that 's what they charge you per year ?
Wow that 'd be great , would n't it ?
So a $ 300,000 house divided by 30 would be 10 grand a year , or a $ 833/mo payment .
Everyone would own million dollar houses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Something's not adding up in your story.
"
 
I completely agree!
The whole thing never made sense to me either 
"How is it that in 2 years and 3 months, you couldn't come up with the interest on the 3 month's payments?
"
 
I don't recall explaining how Wells Fargo calculated interest, so how would you know if it made sense or not?
" you were refunded 1 year's worth of payments, and that the house was put on the market for 1 year's worth of house payments.
I'm going to have to call B.S.
on this one.
"
 
Like I said, I don't understand it either.
"home went back on the market for 1/30 of its original price is a little much.
"
 
wait... what?  Do you think they take the value of your house, divide it by 30 years, and that's what they charge you per year?
Wow that'd be great, wouldn't it?
So a $300,000 house divided by 30 would be 10 grand a year, or a $833/mo payment.
Everyone would own million dollar houses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681705</id>
	<title>Re:Schrodinger's Bank</title>
	<author>bored</author>
	<datestamp>1247475660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I would ask why this stupidity is allowed to continue but then I remember that people like this thought credit default swaps were a pretty neat idea. </i></p><p>Fundamentally, CDS's are a fairly good idea (aka protect the lender if the borrower defaults, see Private Mortgage Insurance). The problem is that its hard enough to price something like PMI. Its even harder to price a CDO, and given the abstractions, people started to play games, like buying CDS's for securities they didn't even own, from multiple companies. Or selling CDS's at effectively random prices..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would ask why this stupidity is allowed to continue but then I remember that people like this thought credit default swaps were a pretty neat idea .
Fundamentally , CDS 's are a fairly good idea ( aka protect the lender if the borrower defaults , see Private Mortgage Insurance ) .
The problem is that its hard enough to price something like PMI .
Its even harder to price a CDO , and given the abstractions , people started to play games , like buying CDS 's for securities they did n't even own , from multiple companies .
Or selling CDS 's at effectively random prices. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would ask why this stupidity is allowed to continue but then I remember that people like this thought credit default swaps were a pretty neat idea.
Fundamentally, CDS's are a fairly good idea (aka protect the lender if the borrower defaults, see Private Mortgage Insurance).
The problem is that its hard enough to price something like PMI.
Its even harder to price a CDO, and given the abstractions, people started to play games, like buying CDS's for securities they didn't even own, from multiple companies.
Or selling CDS's at effectively random prices..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680583</id>
	<title>mad dog biting itself for sympathy department</title>
	<author>swschrad</author>
	<datestamp>1247514240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yada yada "serious issues of tort practice that need to be resolved in a timely manner" yada barfo hack hack spit.</p><p>dismiss the suit, all the lawyers representing all the various offices of Wells Fargo against itself will have a conflict of interest.  get the two pinhead managers in a room, lock the door, and sell the video on satellite for $19.95 to settle the debt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yada yada " serious issues of tort practice that need to be resolved in a timely manner " yada barfo hack hack spit.dismiss the suit , all the lawyers representing all the various offices of Wells Fargo against itself will have a conflict of interest .
get the two pinhead managers in a room , lock the door , and sell the video on satellite for $ 19.95 to settle the debt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yada yada "serious issues of tort practice that need to be resolved in a timely manner" yada barfo hack hack spit.dismiss the suit, all the lawyers representing all the various offices of Wells Fargo against itself will have a conflict of interest.
get the two pinhead managers in a room, lock the door, and sell the video on satellite for $19.95 to settle the debt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681929</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1247476680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Two months after the house was foreclosed they put it back on the market for about 1 year's worth of payments. It's been on the market for nearly a year now.
</p><p>Had they simply let me continue making payments they would have already made more than the price they're selling the house for. I'd love to just go pay for the house with cash they sent me, but it's been vandalized since and much of the $$$ was spent on purchasing and moving to a new house.</p></div><p>Yeah, this is the most disturbing thing to me is that it doesn't genuinely benefit anyone.  You lost your house.  The bank that owned your mortgage made less money out of the deal.  Your neighbors probably lost value in their homes by having a cheap, vandalized, vacant house next door.  Probably some of all of our tax dollars are going to end up covering the losses one way or another.
</p><p>I've heard other similar stories, even some where the house becomes so heavily vandalized that the bank decides not to bother to sell it anymore and essentially abandons ownership.  Why not just work out some kind of a deal with the occupant?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Two months after the house was foreclosed they put it back on the market for about 1 year 's worth of payments .
It 's been on the market for nearly a year now .
Had they simply let me continue making payments they would have already made more than the price they 're selling the house for .
I 'd love to just go pay for the house with cash they sent me , but it 's been vandalized since and much of the $ $ $ was spent on purchasing and moving to a new house.Yeah , this is the most disturbing thing to me is that it does n't genuinely benefit anyone .
You lost your house .
The bank that owned your mortgage made less money out of the deal .
Your neighbors probably lost value in their homes by having a cheap , vandalized , vacant house next door .
Probably some of all of our tax dollars are going to end up covering the losses one way or another .
I 've heard other similar stories , even some where the house becomes so heavily vandalized that the bank decides not to bother to sell it anymore and essentially abandons ownership .
Why not just work out some kind of a deal with the occupant ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two months after the house was foreclosed they put it back on the market for about 1 year's worth of payments.
It's been on the market for nearly a year now.
Had they simply let me continue making payments they would have already made more than the price they're selling the house for.
I'd love to just go pay for the house with cash they sent me, but it's been vandalized since and much of the $$$ was spent on purchasing and moving to a new house.Yeah, this is the most disturbing thing to me is that it doesn't genuinely benefit anyone.
You lost your house.
The bank that owned your mortgage made less money out of the deal.
Your neighbors probably lost value in their homes by having a cheap, vandalized, vacant house next door.
Probably some of all of our tax dollars are going to end up covering the losses one way or another.
I've heard other similar stories, even some where the house becomes so heavily vandalized that the bank decides not to bother to sell it anymore and essentially abandons ownership.
Why not just work out some kind of a deal with the occupant?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682421</id>
	<title>Re:Latest news</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1247478780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll admit that I didn't get it at first.  If you're also otherwise clueless - mattress as in a place to put your money.</p><p>The reason it didn't 'click' with me is the disconnect between needing a bank and needing a new mattress, but hey, points for effort.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll admit that I did n't get it at first .
If you 're also otherwise clueless - mattress as in a place to put your money.The reason it did n't 'click ' with me is the disconnect between needing a bank and needing a new mattress , but hey , points for effort .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll admit that I didn't get it at first.
If you're also otherwise clueless - mattress as in a place to put your money.The reason it didn't 'click' with me is the disconnect between needing a bank and needing a new mattress, but hey, points for effort.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680491</id>
	<title>Re:You can Do that?</title>
	<author>Excelsior</author>
	<datestamp>1247513880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Recently, I called Wells Fargo and told them to "Go f*** yourselves"; I didn't anticipate they would take me so literally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recently , I called Wells Fargo and told them to " Go f * * * yourselves " ; I did n't anticipate they would take me so literally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recently, I called Wells Fargo and told them to "Go f*** yourselves"; I didn't anticipate they would take me so literally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681787</id>
	<title>insurance fraud?</title>
	<author>element-o.p.</author>
	<datestamp>1247476080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I can't help but think that if Wells Fargo is suing themselves, it <i>has</i> to be because they think there is some kind of revenue to gain from it.  First thing that comes to mind...do banks have some kind of liability insurance in case they get sued, along the lines of malpractice insurance for doctors?
<br> <br>
If this is the case, then as long as the policy is underwritten by someone else, then Wells Fargo gets a net income from the deal.  If Wells Fargo the plaintiff wins, then the insurance pays legal fees and damages for Wells Fargo the defendent.  Otherwise, the insurance pays the cost of the suit for Wells Fargo the plaintiff.  In either case, Wells Fargo gets free money, the insurance company loses, and the cost of the law suit gets spread out to all the other customers of the insurance company in the form of rate increases.  Sounds like insurance fraud to me; I can't believe that this would actually fly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm just paranoid , but I ca n't help but think that if Wells Fargo is suing themselves , it has to be because they think there is some kind of revenue to gain from it .
First thing that comes to mind...do banks have some kind of liability insurance in case they get sued , along the lines of malpractice insurance for doctors ?
If this is the case , then as long as the policy is underwritten by someone else , then Wells Fargo gets a net income from the deal .
If Wells Fargo the plaintiff wins , then the insurance pays legal fees and damages for Wells Fargo the defendent .
Otherwise , the insurance pays the cost of the suit for Wells Fargo the plaintiff .
In either case , Wells Fargo gets free money , the insurance company loses , and the cost of the law suit gets spread out to all the other customers of the insurance company in the form of rate increases .
Sounds like insurance fraud to me ; I ca n't believe that this would actually fly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I can't help but think that if Wells Fargo is suing themselves, it has to be because they think there is some kind of revenue to gain from it.
First thing that comes to mind...do banks have some kind of liability insurance in case they get sued, along the lines of malpractice insurance for doctors?
If this is the case, then as long as the policy is underwritten by someone else, then Wells Fargo gets a net income from the deal.
If Wells Fargo the plaintiff wins, then the insurance pays legal fees and damages for Wells Fargo the defendent.
Otherwise, the insurance pays the cost of the suit for Wells Fargo the plaintiff.
In either case, Wells Fargo gets free money, the insurance company loses, and the cost of the law suit gets spread out to all the other customers of the insurance company in the form of rate increases.
Sounds like insurance fraud to me; I can't believe that this would actually fly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680053</id>
	<title>Tax deductable?</title>
	<author>piemcfly</author>
	<datestamp>1247512320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This seems like a great way of laundering money...<br> <br>

1 - Sue yourself over some bullshit<br>
2 - Pay outlandish fees to lawyer who's in on the deal (on both sides, of course, can't wait for him to object to himself in court)<br>
3 - Make court battle drag on with continuously unearthed 'new evidence'<br>
4 - Keep paying outlandish fees<br>
5 - Settle case with yourself (including ridiculous settlement fee)<br>
6 - Profit!<br> <br> <br>


Or do even better: sue yourself over an issue that allows for tax deduction.<br>
There are probably some details I'm overlooking here, but with some legal loopholery I'm sure this can work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems like a great way of laundering money.. . 1 - Sue yourself over some bullshit 2 - Pay outlandish fees to lawyer who 's in on the deal ( on both sides , of course , ca n't wait for him to object to himself in court ) 3 - Make court battle drag on with continuously unearthed 'new evidence ' 4 - Keep paying outlandish fees 5 - Settle case with yourself ( including ridiculous settlement fee ) 6 - Profit !
Or do even better : sue yourself over an issue that allows for tax deduction .
There are probably some details I 'm overlooking here , but with some legal loopholery I 'm sure this can work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems like a great way of laundering money... 

1 - Sue yourself over some bullshit
2 - Pay outlandish fees to lawyer who's in on the deal (on both sides, of course, can't wait for him to object to himself in court)
3 - Make court battle drag on with continuously unearthed 'new evidence'
4 - Keep paying outlandish fees
5 - Settle case with yourself (including ridiculous settlement fee)
6 - Profit!
Or do even better: sue yourself over an issue that allows for tax deduction.
There are probably some details I'm overlooking here, but with some legal loopholery I'm sure this can work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682707</id>
	<title>$2  $1</title>
	<author>wrencherd</author>
	<datestamp>1247479980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One possible explanation could be that by virtue of being on both sides of this lawsuit, one single financial institution--Wells Fargo--can now claim twice the federal money committed to helping lenders make up for losses related to the "mortgage crisis".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One possible explanation could be that by virtue of being on both sides of this lawsuit , one single financial institution--Wells Fargo--can now claim twice the federal money committed to helping lenders make up for losses related to the " mortgage crisis " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One possible explanation could be that by virtue of being on both sides of this lawsuit, one single financial institution--Wells Fargo--can now claim twice the federal money committed to helping lenders make up for losses related to the "mortgage crisis".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682923</id>
	<title>Fox is not a legit news source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247480820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Republishing anything Fox "news" puts out is like reading a National "Enquirer" story reprinted in the church newsletter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Republishing anything Fox " news " puts out is like reading a National " Enquirer " story reprinted in the church newsletter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Republishing anything Fox "news" puts out is like reading a National "Enquirer" story reprinted in the church newsletter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681729</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>pwizard2</author>
	<datestamp>1247475780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In the end, I had to threaten Wells Fargo with the Better Business Bureau in order to get them to remove the charges for insurance that I refused to pay for (since I had already been insured and notified them multiple times of it).</p></div></blockquote><p>

While it sounds intimidating, the Better Business Bureau is not a government agency and is therefore powerless to make a company do the right thing. (If you want to play that angle, just hope the guy you're talking to doesn't know that) If you really want to put the fear of God into a business when they try to rip you off, I heard you should threaten to talk to your state Attorney General instead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the end , I had to threaten Wells Fargo with the Better Business Bureau in order to get them to remove the charges for insurance that I refused to pay for ( since I had already been insured and notified them multiple times of it ) .
While it sounds intimidating , the Better Business Bureau is not a government agency and is therefore powerless to make a company do the right thing .
( If you want to play that angle , just hope the guy you 're talking to does n't know that ) If you really want to put the fear of God into a business when they try to rip you off , I heard you should threaten to talk to your state Attorney General instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the end, I had to threaten Wells Fargo with the Better Business Bureau in order to get them to remove the charges for insurance that I refused to pay for (since I had already been insured and notified them multiple times of it).
While it sounds intimidating, the Better Business Bureau is not a government agency and is therefore powerless to make a company do the right thing.
(If you want to play that angle, just hope the guy you're talking to doesn't know that) If you really want to put the fear of God into a business when they try to rip you off, I heard you should threaten to talk to your state Attorney General instead.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681877</id>
	<title>Re:Florida requires it?!</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1247476440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I RTFA, and it appears that Florida requires that you sue all lien holders. </i></p><p>Wrong.  From the article:</p><blockquote><div><p>"Due to state foreclosure laws, lenders are obligated to <b>name and notify subordinate lien holders</b>," said Wells Fargo spokesman Kevin Waetke.'</p></div></blockquote><p>(emphasis mine)</p><p><i>Since they have 80/20 double mortgage, they have to sue themselves.</i></p><p>Also wrong.  From the article:</p><blockquote><div><p>Rather than suing itself -- a stunt that was never even attempted on the MTV show "Jackass" -- wouldn't it be easier for Wells Fargo to release one of the liens to itself? Or pursue some other internal accounting strategy rather than tie up the court with nonsense?</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I RTFA , and it appears that Florida requires that you sue all lien holders .
Wrong. From the article : " Due to state foreclosure laws , lenders are obligated to name and notify subordinate lien holders , " said Wells Fargo spokesman Kevin Waetke .
' ( emphasis mine ) Since they have 80/20 double mortgage , they have to sue themselves.Also wrong .
From the article : Rather than suing itself -- a stunt that was never even attempted on the MTV show " Jackass " -- would n't it be easier for Wells Fargo to release one of the liens to itself ?
Or pursue some other internal accounting strategy rather than tie up the court with nonsense ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I RTFA, and it appears that Florida requires that you sue all lien holders.
Wrong.  From the article:"Due to state foreclosure laws, lenders are obligated to name and notify subordinate lien holders," said Wells Fargo spokesman Kevin Waetke.
'(emphasis mine)Since they have 80/20 double mortgage, they have to sue themselves.Also wrong.
From the article:Rather than suing itself -- a stunt that was never even attempted on the MTV show "Jackass" -- wouldn't it be easier for Wells Fargo to release one of the liens to itself?
Or pursue some other internal accounting strategy rather than tie up the court with nonsense?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681397</id>
	<title>OB Python</title>
	<author>mojotooth</author>
	<datestamp>1247517780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find the defendant NOT ESTHER WILLIAMS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find the defendant NOT ESTHER WILLIAMS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find the defendant NOT ESTHER WILLIAMS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680077</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>residieu</author>
	<datestamp>1247512380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except the defense is DISPUTING the claims of the plaintiff. If it was just for bookkeeping purposes, wouldn't the defense nod their heads, and rubber stamp a settlement?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except the defense is DISPUTING the claims of the plaintiff .
If it was just for bookkeeping purposes , would n't the defense nod their heads , and rubber stamp a settlement ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except the defense is DISPUTING the claims of the plaintiff.
If it was just for bookkeeping purposes, wouldn't the defense nod their heads, and rubber stamp a settlement?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680789</id>
	<title>You Guyz Just Don't Understand</title>
	<author>BigBlueOx</author>
	<datestamp>1247515260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With this lawsuit, Wells has evolved their business into a quantum state of simultaneous sue and be-sued<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... uh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ness.  This state of legal "entanglement" allows a powerful paradigm to emerge: the instantaneous transmission of money to lawyers with no need to perform the usual classical intermediate steps.<br>
<br>
Wells should be applauded for realizing that, in the actual macrocosmic world, corporate intelligence is less than h-bar/2 (in pounds, dollars, yen units) and that the Hamiltonian of their financial assets is an unbounded quantity now that the US government is included in the function.<br>
<br>
Well done, Wells.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With this lawsuit , Wells has evolved their business into a quantum state of simultaneous sue and be-sued ... uh ... ness. This state of legal " entanglement " allows a powerful paradigm to emerge : the instantaneous transmission of money to lawyers with no need to perform the usual classical intermediate steps .
Wells should be applauded for realizing that , in the actual macrocosmic world , corporate intelligence is less than h-bar/2 ( in pounds , dollars , yen units ) and that the Hamiltonian of their financial assets is an unbounded quantity now that the US government is included in the function .
Well done , Wells .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With this lawsuit, Wells has evolved their business into a quantum state of simultaneous sue and be-sued ... uh ... ness.  This state of legal "entanglement" allows a powerful paradigm to emerge: the instantaneous transmission of money to lawyers with no need to perform the usual classical intermediate steps.
Wells should be applauded for realizing that, in the actual macrocosmic world, corporate intelligence is less than h-bar/2 (in pounds, dollars, yen units) and that the Hamiltonian of their financial assets is an unbounded quantity now that the US government is included in the function.
Well done, Wells.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684183</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>Bourbonium</author>
	<datestamp>1247487540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As is becoming more common with foreclosure cases these days, a homeowner can fight the action if they can have the bank prove that they hold the note and all the paperwork on the property.  In many, many cases, the bank may well have bundled the mortgage into a security with dozens or even hundreds of other mortgages and sold it to another entity.  That entity may well have sold it in a different bundled security to another bank and so on and on and on.  I do recall reading about a case in, yes, Florida, where a homeowner has actually forced the bank to re-negotiate her mortgage because they have <i>not been able to prove that they hold her mortgage!</i>  They sold it off years ago in such a deal, but now cannot trace the labyrinth of transactions to find the original promissory note, because it has been sold and re-sold multiple times since then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As is becoming more common with foreclosure cases these days , a homeowner can fight the action if they can have the bank prove that they hold the note and all the paperwork on the property .
In many , many cases , the bank may well have bundled the mortgage into a security with dozens or even hundreds of other mortgages and sold it to another entity .
That entity may well have sold it in a different bundled security to another bank and so on and on and on .
I do recall reading about a case in , yes , Florida , where a homeowner has actually forced the bank to re-negotiate her mortgage because they have not been able to prove that they hold her mortgage !
They sold it off years ago in such a deal , but now can not trace the labyrinth of transactions to find the original promissory note , because it has been sold and re-sold multiple times since then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As is becoming more common with foreclosure cases these days, a homeowner can fight the action if they can have the bank prove that they hold the note and all the paperwork on the property.
In many, many cases, the bank may well have bundled the mortgage into a security with dozens or even hundreds of other mortgages and sold it to another entity.
That entity may well have sold it in a different bundled security to another bank and so on and on and on.
I do recall reading about a case in, yes, Florida, where a homeowner has actually forced the bank to re-negotiate her mortgage because they have not been able to prove that they hold her mortgage!
They sold it off years ago in such a deal, but now cannot trace the labyrinth of transactions to find the original promissory note, because it has been sold and re-sold multiple times since then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681453</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>gzunk</author>
	<datestamp>1247517960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet it isn't actually one company. I would have thought that the property sales unit and the mortgage unit are probably seperately registered companies in their own right, who just have the same shareholders, which is a parent shell company. Probably in Barbados somwhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet it is n't actually one company .
I would have thought that the property sales unit and the mortgage unit are probably seperately registered companies in their own right , who just have the same shareholders , which is a parent shell company .
Probably in Barbados somwhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet it isn't actually one company.
I would have thought that the property sales unit and the mortgage unit are probably seperately registered companies in their own right, who just have the same shareholders, which is a parent shell company.
Probably in Barbados somwhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682717</id>
	<title>Re:seriously?!</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1247479980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This sounds like something out of HitchHikers or a Python sketch.</p></div><p>Sounds more like Dilbert to me.  <i>"Basically we pay ourselves to hose ourselves."</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like something out of HitchHikers or a Python sketch.Sounds more like Dilbert to me .
" Basically we pay ourselves to hose ourselves .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like something out of HitchHikers or a Python sketch.Sounds more like Dilbert to me.
"Basically we pay ourselves to hose ourselves.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682933</id>
	<title>Re:Stupidity countdown</title>
	<author>nickrout</author>
	<datestamp>1247480880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep those who read TFA AND the comments will realise that its the law that requires WF to name itself as a defendant (which is not the same as suing yourself).

And you rightly identify that the real stupidity was lending too much. Thats the real story.

I had a bank manager ring me the other day about a client's contract to buy a house. She said "My god these people seem to have signed a contract that isn't subject to gettiong bank finance approval, why would someone do such a thing?"

My response: "Because for the last 3 to 5 years everyone in the market is used to the banks saying 'yes' to every damn thing!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep those who read TFA AND the comments will realise that its the law that requires WF to name itself as a defendant ( which is not the same as suing yourself ) .
And you rightly identify that the real stupidity was lending too much .
Thats the real story .
I had a bank manager ring me the other day about a client 's contract to buy a house .
She said " My god these people seem to have signed a contract that is n't subject to gettiong bank finance approval , why would someone do such a thing ?
" My response : " Because for the last 3 to 5 years everyone in the market is used to the banks saying 'yes ' to every damn thing !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep those who read TFA AND the comments will realise that its the law that requires WF to name itself as a defendant (which is not the same as suing yourself).
And you rightly identify that the real stupidity was lending too much.
Thats the real story.
I had a bank manager ring me the other day about a client's contract to buy a house.
She said "My god these people seem to have signed a contract that isn't subject to gettiong bank finance approval, why would someone do such a thing?
"

My response: "Because for the last 3 to 5 years everyone in the market is used to the banks saying 'yes' to every damn thing!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684667</id>
	<title>Re:You can Do that?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247490540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What kind of idiot would get a mortgage from these...wait, ah crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of idiot would get a mortgage from these...wait , ah crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of idiot would get a mortgage from these...wait, ah crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681623</id>
	<title>Re:Schrodinger's Bank</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247518560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They will exist in both a state of winning and losing this case regardless of the outcome.  Cool! I would ask why this stupidity is allowed to continue but then I remember that people like this thought credit default swaps were a pretty neat idea. .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></div><p>So we put the president of Wells Fargo in a box with a loaded gun........</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They will exist in both a state of winning and losing this case regardless of the outcome .
Cool ! I would ask why this stupidity is allowed to continue but then I remember that people like this thought credit default swaps were a pretty neat idea .
. .So we put the president of Wells Fargo in a box with a loaded gun....... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They will exist in both a state of winning and losing this case regardless of the outcome.
Cool! I would ask why this stupidity is allowed to continue but then I remember that people like this thought credit default swaps were a pretty neat idea.
. .So we put the president of Wells Fargo in a box with a loaded gun........
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679635</id>
	<title>Florida requires it?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247510940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I RTFA, and it appears that Florida requires that you sue all lien holders. Since they have 80/20 double mortgage, they have to sue themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I RTFA , and it appears that Florida requires that you sue all lien holders .
Since they have 80/20 double mortgage , they have to sue themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I RTFA, and it appears that Florida requires that you sue all lien holders.
Since they have 80/20 double mortgage, they have to sue themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680357</id>
	<title>He who represents himself has a fool for ....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247513340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So basically, Wells Fargo is relying on the tax supported legal system to handle it's own internal functions.  This is a fantastic outsourcing strategy!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically , Wells Fargo is relying on the tax supported legal system to handle it 's own internal functions .
This is a fantastic outsourcing strategy !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically, Wells Fargo is relying on the tax supported legal system to handle it's own internal functions.
This is a fantastic outsourcing strategy!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680715</id>
	<title>Fox news Fellas</title>
	<author>anonymousNR</author>
	<datestamp>1247514900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see this anywhere other than foxnews</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see this anywhere other than foxnews</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see this anywhere other than foxnews</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679897</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247511780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Coldeagle, as someone who placed an offer on a house in November but did not get possession of a Wells Fargo house until February, sit back and relax (and my mortgage company was ready to go 14 days after the offer) -- I got a $60,000 discount on a 2 year old house!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Coldeagle , as someone who placed an offer on a house in November but did not get possession of a Wells Fargo house until February , sit back and relax ( and my mortgage company was ready to go 14 days after the offer ) -- I got a $ 60,000 discount on a 2 year old house !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coldeagle, as someone who placed an offer on a house in November but did not get possession of a Wells Fargo house until February, sit back and relax (and my mortgage company was ready to go 14 days after the offer) -- I got a $60,000 discount on a 2 year old house!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681245</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1247517120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They want a clear case record, but there's always some random chance involved in law.  What if they lose? (Aren't all lawyers, as officers of the court, <b>required</b> to try to win their case?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They want a clear case record , but there 's always some random chance involved in law .
What if they lose ?
( Are n't all lawyers , as officers of the court , required to try to win their case ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They want a clear case record, but there's always some random chance involved in law.
What if they lose?
(Aren't all lawyers, as officers of the court, required to try to win their case?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681563</id>
	<title>sounds like a growth industry</title>
	<author>tmbailey123</author>
	<datestamp>1247518380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They need something to replace the credit default swap sham business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They need something to replace the credit default swap sham business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They need something to replace the credit default swap sham business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682091</id>
	<title>Re:You can Do that?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247477340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why the only "industry" in the U.S. is law suits. So the Lawyers have found yet another ridiculous way to make money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why the only " industry " in the U.S. is law suits .
So the Lawyers have found yet another ridiculous way to make money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why the only "industry" in the U.S. is law suits.
So the Lawyers have found yet another ridiculous way to make money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684777</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1247491560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Houses can end up on the market for surprisingly small amounts. Not too long ago there was a story on TV about a family who got screwed over by the mass bank suicide - the bank they had a mortgage with went belly-up, their mortgage was sold off to another bank and that bank managed to put the house up for auction. In the end the house was auctioned off for some thirty thousand Euros, if I remember correctly - and I think it was a two-family house, which (in Germany) means construction costs of about 200.000 Euros and up, not including the land it was built on. Let's assume 300.000 in total. So we're down to about a tenth of what the house was actually worth.<br>
<br>
The GP also pointed out that the house was vandalized within a year foreclosure, which sounds like it wasn't in the best of neighborhoods. If the neighborhood used to be better when the house was built that might have contributed to it losing value.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Houses can end up on the market for surprisingly small amounts .
Not too long ago there was a story on TV about a family who got screwed over by the mass bank suicide - the bank they had a mortgage with went belly-up , their mortgage was sold off to another bank and that bank managed to put the house up for auction .
In the end the house was auctioned off for some thirty thousand Euros , if I remember correctly - and I think it was a two-family house , which ( in Germany ) means construction costs of about 200.000 Euros and up , not including the land it was built on .
Let 's assume 300.000 in total .
So we 're down to about a tenth of what the house was actually worth .
The GP also pointed out that the house was vandalized within a year foreclosure , which sounds like it was n't in the best of neighborhoods .
If the neighborhood used to be better when the house was built that might have contributed to it losing value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Houses can end up on the market for surprisingly small amounts.
Not too long ago there was a story on TV about a family who got screwed over by the mass bank suicide - the bank they had a mortgage with went belly-up, their mortgage was sold off to another bank and that bank managed to put the house up for auction.
In the end the house was auctioned off for some thirty thousand Euros, if I remember correctly - and I think it was a two-family house, which (in Germany) means construction costs of about 200.000 Euros and up, not including the land it was built on.
Let's assume 300.000 in total.
So we're down to about a tenth of what the house was actually worth.
The GP also pointed out that the house was vandalized within a year foreclosure, which sounds like it wasn't in the best of neighborhoods.
If the neighborhood used to be better when the house was built that might have contributed to it losing value.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680197</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>AndersOSU</author>
	<datestamp>1247512800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>even if you understand that, the fact that this nonsense ends up in court means there's no one in a management position prepared to actually make decisions.</p><p>Ok, different divisions have different objectives, but it's the job of the CEO to manage the company as a whole.  This should all be resolved in conference room 101 <b>internally</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>even if you understand that , the fact that this nonsense ends up in court means there 's no one in a management position prepared to actually make decisions.Ok , different divisions have different objectives , but it 's the job of the CEO to manage the company as a whole .
This should all be resolved in conference room 101 internally</tokentext>
<sentencetext>even if you understand that, the fact that this nonsense ends up in court means there's no one in a management position prepared to actually make decisions.Ok, different divisions have different objectives, but it's the job of the CEO to manage the company as a whole.
This should all be resolved in conference room 101 internally</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471</id>
	<title>Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>Coldeagle</author>
	<datestamp>1247510520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm currently in the process of purchasing a property owned by Wells Fargo, and I'm also using Wells Fargo for the mortgage.  Honestly, I'm getting messages from the company that's servicing the property that the seller wants the deal closed as soon as possible, and that I need to pressure the lender!  I mean honestly, this and the example listed here are a perfect example of how a bank can get so large that they can't even deal with themselves.  Who would have thunk a fictitious person could develop schizophrenia!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm currently in the process of purchasing a property owned by Wells Fargo , and I 'm also using Wells Fargo for the mortgage .
Honestly , I 'm getting messages from the company that 's servicing the property that the seller wants the deal closed as soon as possible , and that I need to pressure the lender !
I mean honestly , this and the example listed here are a perfect example of how a bank can get so large that they ca n't even deal with themselves .
Who would have thunk a fictitious person could develop schizophrenia !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm currently in the process of purchasing a property owned by Wells Fargo, and I'm also using Wells Fargo for the mortgage.
Honestly, I'm getting messages from the company that's servicing the property that the seller wants the deal closed as soon as possible, and that I need to pressure the lender!
I mean honestly, this and the example listed here are a perfect example of how a bank can get so large that they can't even deal with themselves.
Who would have thunk a fictitious person could develop schizophrenia!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680907</id>
	<title>What about..?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247515740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one can be forced to testify agains itself?<br>It's a Paradox!</p><p>Are we going to implode?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one can be forced to testify agains itself ? It 's a Paradox ! Are we going to implode ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one can be forced to testify agains itself?It's a Paradox!Are we going to implode?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28683135</id>
	<title>Head up their own a$$.</title>
	<author>Neanderthal Ninny</author>
	<datestamp>1247481600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is truly a "head up their own ass" moment so let me savory this. The banks &amp; financial institutions have been crawling around looking for "dark places" they didn't know it was their own ass.<br>All of these banks and financial institutions don't have a clue what they are doing and this lawsuit shows on aspect of this. Also the regulators that supposed to protect us from these idiots and goons are no better in helping us since they have been paid off by the industry they have are supposed to regulate.<br>The entire banking &amp; financial industry and the regulating system needs from foundation up reform and replacement since the current system is to corrupt to just to reform. Ground up is not good enough since the foundation has been compromised.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is truly a " head up their own ass " moment so let me savory this .
The banks &amp; financial institutions have been crawling around looking for " dark places " they did n't know it was their own ass.All of these banks and financial institutions do n't have a clue what they are doing and this lawsuit shows on aspect of this .
Also the regulators that supposed to protect us from these idiots and goons are no better in helping us since they have been paid off by the industry they have are supposed to regulate.The entire banking &amp; financial industry and the regulating system needs from foundation up reform and replacement since the current system is to corrupt to just to reform .
Ground up is not good enough since the foundation has been compromised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is truly a "head up their own ass" moment so let me savory this.
The banks &amp; financial institutions have been crawling around looking for "dark places" they didn't know it was their own ass.All of these banks and financial institutions don't have a clue what they are doing and this lawsuit shows on aspect of this.
Also the regulators that supposed to protect us from these idiots and goons are no better in helping us since they have been paid off by the industry they have are supposed to regulate.The entire banking &amp; financial industry and the regulating system needs from foundation up reform and replacement since the current system is to corrupt to just to reform.
Ground up is not good enough since the foundation has been compromised.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28683999</id>
	<title>Not so stupid if you figure in tax laws...</title>
	<author>Perf</author>
	<datestamp>1247486460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The payouts are considered a business loss.  Money received from a lawsuit is tax free (because it is considered compensation for money already owed.)</p><p>Company A sues itself for $1 million to be paid out $50,000/year for 20 years.  Each year, it deducts a $50,000 payout.  Each year, it gets $50,000 tax free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The payouts are considered a business loss .
Money received from a lawsuit is tax free ( because it is considered compensation for money already owed .
) Company A sues itself for $ 1 million to be paid out $ 50,000/year for 20 years .
Each year , it deducts a $ 50,000 payout .
Each year , it gets $ 50,000 tax free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The payouts are considered a business loss.
Money received from a lawsuit is tax free (because it is considered compensation for money already owed.
)Company A sues itself for $1 million to be paid out $50,000/year for 20 years.
Each year, it deducts a $50,000 payout.
Each year, it gets $50,000 tax free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28692207</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247591400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your story intrigues me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your story intrigues me , and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your story intrigues me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28688571</id>
	<title>Re:You can Do that?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247572320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://www.ubersoft.net/comic/hd/2008/02/viktorgate" title="ubersoft.net" rel="nofollow">obligatory comic</a> [ubersoft.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>obligatory comic [ ubersoft.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> obligatory comic [ubersoft.net]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681767</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247475960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Something's not adding up in your story.  First of all,  (and I'll probably get modded into oblivion for this) it sounds like you bought a house you either couldn't afford or were unwilling to pay for.  You calmly claim that you "fell behind" 3 months,  were allowed to enter an agreement with the bank to fix that problem,  and still complain that in 2 years they wanted their money with interest....the nerve!!  Let's put the shoe on the other foot.  If your employer stopped paying your check for 3 months,  wouldn't you want your money back ASAP and with some interest?<br> <br>  I also do not understand how you were able to repay the 3 month's worth of mortgage owed,  but were unable to come up with the interest on the delinquent charges.  How is it that in 2 years and 3 months,  you couldn't come up with the interest on the 3 month's payments?<br> <br>Then,  to top it off,  you claim that your home was foreclosed on,  you were refunded 1 year's worth of payments,  and that the house was put on the market for 1 year's worth of house payments.  I'm going to have to call B.S. on this one.  I realize that we're in a "down market" as they call it,  but trying to tell me that your home went back on the market for 1/30 of its original price is a little much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something 's not adding up in your story .
First of all , ( and I 'll probably get modded into oblivion for this ) it sounds like you bought a house you either could n't afford or were unwilling to pay for .
You calmly claim that you " fell behind " 3 months , were allowed to enter an agreement with the bank to fix that problem , and still complain that in 2 years they wanted their money with interest....the nerve ! !
Let 's put the shoe on the other foot .
If your employer stopped paying your check for 3 months , would n't you want your money back ASAP and with some interest ?
I also do not understand how you were able to repay the 3 month 's worth of mortgage owed , but were unable to come up with the interest on the delinquent charges .
How is it that in 2 years and 3 months , you could n't come up with the interest on the 3 month 's payments ?
Then , to top it off , you claim that your home was foreclosed on , you were refunded 1 year 's worth of payments , and that the house was put on the market for 1 year 's worth of house payments .
I 'm going to have to call B.S .
on this one .
I realize that we 're in a " down market " as they call it , but trying to tell me that your home went back on the market for 1/30 of its original price is a little much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something's not adding up in your story.
First of all,  (and I'll probably get modded into oblivion for this) it sounds like you bought a house you either couldn't afford or were unwilling to pay for.
You calmly claim that you "fell behind" 3 months,  were allowed to enter an agreement with the bank to fix that problem,  and still complain that in 2 years they wanted their money with interest....the nerve!!
Let's put the shoe on the other foot.
If your employer stopped paying your check for 3 months,  wouldn't you want your money back ASAP and with some interest?
I also do not understand how you were able to repay the 3 month's worth of mortgage owed,  but were unable to come up with the interest on the delinquent charges.
How is it that in 2 years and 3 months,  you couldn't come up with the interest on the 3 month's payments?
Then,  to top it off,  you claim that your home was foreclosed on,  you were refunded 1 year's worth of payments,  and that the house was put on the market for 1 year's worth of house payments.
I'm going to have to call B.S.
on this one.
I realize that we're in a "down market" as they call it,  but trying to tell me that your home went back on the market for 1/30 of its original price is a little much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28688425</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1247570640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a horror story about Bank of America; never get near that bank without a flamethrower or a bazooka. Pa lend out some of his IRA money  to various companies. The loans were in his IRA portfolio and kept at Fleet Bank. Fleet got bought by BofA and then the fun started. There was one remaining loan by that time since I had cleaned up the rest. The loan was to a microbrewery and they religiously pay their monthlies on time every month. BofA decided they had a problem with a loan in an IRA and wanted it and the IRA gone. They decided to charge $8K a year on about $64,000 worth of loan to keep it on their books and if I would like, the IRA (now the sole retirement for Ma since Pa went to the Great Food Bowl in the Sky) should be moved to somewhere else, anywhere but BofA. As they well knew, no other IRA keeper would accept an account with a loan in it, so we had to take it out in one large disbursement which caused $16,000 in taxes due to Uncle Sam. Under a typical year, Ma wouldn't pay anything. So thank you BofA from the bottom of my heart where it is cold and thinks wicked thoughts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a horror story about Bank of America ; never get near that bank without a flamethrower or a bazooka .
Pa lend out some of his IRA money to various companies .
The loans were in his IRA portfolio and kept at Fleet Bank .
Fleet got bought by BofA and then the fun started .
There was one remaining loan by that time since I had cleaned up the rest .
The loan was to a microbrewery and they religiously pay their monthlies on time every month .
BofA decided they had a problem with a loan in an IRA and wanted it and the IRA gone .
They decided to charge $ 8K a year on about $ 64,000 worth of loan to keep it on their books and if I would like , the IRA ( now the sole retirement for Ma since Pa went to the Great Food Bowl in the Sky ) should be moved to somewhere else , anywhere but BofA .
As they well knew , no other IRA keeper would accept an account with a loan in it , so we had to take it out in one large disbursement which caused $ 16,000 in taxes due to Uncle Sam .
Under a typical year , Ma would n't pay anything .
So thank you BofA from the bottom of my heart where it is cold and thinks wicked thoughts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a horror story about Bank of America; never get near that bank without a flamethrower or a bazooka.
Pa lend out some of his IRA money  to various companies.
The loans were in his IRA portfolio and kept at Fleet Bank.
Fleet got bought by BofA and then the fun started.
There was one remaining loan by that time since I had cleaned up the rest.
The loan was to a microbrewery and they religiously pay their monthlies on time every month.
BofA decided they had a problem with a loan in an IRA and wanted it and the IRA gone.
They decided to charge $8K a year on about $64,000 worth of loan to keep it on their books and if I would like, the IRA (now the sole retirement for Ma since Pa went to the Great Food Bowl in the Sky) should be moved to somewhere else, anywhere but BofA.
As they well knew, no other IRA keeper would accept an account with a loan in it, so we had to take it out in one large disbursement which caused $16,000 in taxes due to Uncle Sam.
Under a typical year, Ma wouldn't pay anything.
So thank you BofA from the bottom of my heart where it is cold and thinks wicked thoughts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28686701</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>azgard</author>
	<datestamp>1247507400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is bullshit. It's not about stupidity at all, it's about control. People withhold information from other people in order to control them, not because they are stupid.</p><p>I recently read the following great book:<br><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Maverick-Success-Behind-Unusual-Workplace/dp/0446670553/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1247546857&amp;sr=8-1" title="amazon.com">http://www.amazon.com/Maverick-Success-Behind-Unusual-Workplace/dp/0446670553/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1247546857&amp;sr=8-1</a> [amazon.com]</p><p>It shows that if you allow free flow of information (and more democracy and less autocracy), ordinary people (which you denounce by calling them stupid) become much more productive and are able to make much better decisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is bullshit .
It 's not about stupidity at all , it 's about control .
People withhold information from other people in order to control them , not because they are stupid.I recently read the following great book : http : //www.amazon.com/Maverick-Success-Behind-Unusual-Workplace/dp/0446670553/ref = sr \ _1 \ _1 ? ie = UTF8&amp;s = books&amp;qid = 1247546857&amp;sr = 8-1 [ amazon.com ] It shows that if you allow free flow of information ( and more democracy and less autocracy ) , ordinary people ( which you denounce by calling them stupid ) become much more productive and are able to make much better decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is bullshit.
It's not about stupidity at all, it's about control.
People withhold information from other people in order to control them, not because they are stupid.I recently read the following great book:http://www.amazon.com/Maverick-Success-Behind-Unusual-Workplace/dp/0446670553/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1247546857&amp;sr=8-1 [amazon.com]It shows that if you allow free flow of information (and more democracy and less autocracy), ordinary people (which you denounce by calling them stupid) become much more productive and are able to make much better decisions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681171</id>
	<title>The Hack is comming from your own Machine!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247516880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From port 127.0.0.1 !!!</p><p>OMG, Ponies!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From port 127.0.0.1 ! !
! OMG , Ponies !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From port 127.0.0.1 !!
!OMG, Ponies!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682981</id>
	<title>not schizophrenia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247481060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Who would have thunk a fictitious person could develop schizophrenia!</i></p><p>Not schizophrenia, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative\_identity\_disorder" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">dissociative identity disorder</a> [wikipedia.org].  Schizophrenia  (from Greek roots meaning, basically, "broken brain") is a different term that refers to a different mental illness.</p><p>I understand that you're making a joke.  But your language failed.  Sorry to geek out over it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who would have thunk a fictitious person could develop schizophrenia ! Not schizophrenia , dissociative identity disorder [ wikipedia.org ] .
Schizophrenia ( from Greek roots meaning , basically , " broken brain " ) is a different term that refers to a different mental illness.I understand that you 're making a joke .
But your language failed .
Sorry to geek out over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who would have thunk a fictitious person could develop schizophrenia!Not schizophrenia, dissociative identity disorder [wikipedia.org].
Schizophrenia  (from Greek roots meaning, basically, "broken brain") is a different term that refers to a different mental illness.I understand that you're making a joke.
But your language failed.
Sorry to geek out over it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681683</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247518740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am not permitted to tell some of the stories I know about Wells Fargo.  However, your example is not the most insane of them.  It's just part of the pattern.  I long ago stopped finding it surprising when Wells Fargo does something bat-shit insane.  Nor am I surprised when the US federal government invests in the craziest entities it can find.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not permitted to tell some of the stories I know about Wells Fargo .
However , your example is not the most insane of them .
It 's just part of the pattern .
I long ago stopped finding it surprising when Wells Fargo does something bat-shit insane .
Nor am I surprised when the US federal government invests in the craziest entities it can find .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not permitted to tell some of the stories I know about Wells Fargo.
However, your example is not the most insane of them.
It's just part of the pattern.
I long ago stopped finding it surprising when Wells Fargo does something bat-shit insane.
Nor am I surprised when the US federal government invests in the craziest entities it can find.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679719</id>
	<title>Re:You can Do that?</title>
	<author>K. S. Kyosuke</author>
	<datestamp>1247511240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I heard they have lavatories with mirrors. Help yourself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard they have lavatories with mirrors .
Help yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard they have lavatories with mirrors.
Help yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679627</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247510940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The seller wants you to close as soon as possible because they know if they lose this sale, they will be waiting a long time and getting a lot less for the house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The seller wants you to close as soon as possible because they know if they lose this sale , they will be waiting a long time and getting a lot less for the house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The seller wants you to close as soon as possible because they know if they lose this sale, they will be waiting a long time and getting a lot less for the house.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680527</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1247514000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>this and the example listed here are a perfect example of how a bank can get so large that they can't even deal with themselves.</i></p><p>It's not the size, it's the stupidity.</p><p>Everything I know about management I learned from the "telephone game" we played as kids, where you whisper a message around in a circle and find that after about three hops it gets completely mangled.</p><p>Stupid people ignore this phenomenon, and go through their lives acting as if telling someone something once is sufficient to get the message across.  Stupid people run stupid organizations that radically under-communicate.  Some people who are both stupid and evil use this to create private fiefdoms within organizations.</p><p>Smart people recognize this phenomena, and create organizations with multiple, redundant and simple lines of communication, and work to keep policies clear and concise so they are harder to mangle in the communications process.</p><p>Organizations run by stupid people are therefore extremely complex and hard to understand, whereas those run by smart people are generally simple.  This leads stupid people--who are vastly in the majority--to think that organizations run by smart people aren't very capable, because they are too stupid to realize that capability comes with simplicity, not complexity.</p><p>Corporate America is hugely invested in the myth of complexity, and hires and trains managers accordingly.  Attempts to simplify are fought at every turn.  This creates the kind of environment where an organization can actively pursue and defend a lawsuit against itself, by itself, rather than carrying through the pro-forma motions required by law, because the people on both sides are too stupid to consider any other possibility.</p><p>And remember:  this comes down to a couple of people.  They are embedded within a large organization, but it is at the end of the day just them.  It isn't like there are huge teams on this.  An organization with clear lines of communication and responsibility would make it easy for the people in question to talk to each other, and the issue would be resolved.  But that would be smart, and there is nothing smart about the people working for American banks these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this and the example listed here are a perfect example of how a bank can get so large that they ca n't even deal with themselves.It 's not the size , it 's the stupidity.Everything I know about management I learned from the " telephone game " we played as kids , where you whisper a message around in a circle and find that after about three hops it gets completely mangled.Stupid people ignore this phenomenon , and go through their lives acting as if telling someone something once is sufficient to get the message across .
Stupid people run stupid organizations that radically under-communicate .
Some people who are both stupid and evil use this to create private fiefdoms within organizations.Smart people recognize this phenomena , and create organizations with multiple , redundant and simple lines of communication , and work to keep policies clear and concise so they are harder to mangle in the communications process.Organizations run by stupid people are therefore extremely complex and hard to understand , whereas those run by smart people are generally simple .
This leads stupid people--who are vastly in the majority--to think that organizations run by smart people are n't very capable , because they are too stupid to realize that capability comes with simplicity , not complexity.Corporate America is hugely invested in the myth of complexity , and hires and trains managers accordingly .
Attempts to simplify are fought at every turn .
This creates the kind of environment where an organization can actively pursue and defend a lawsuit against itself , by itself , rather than carrying through the pro-forma motions required by law , because the people on both sides are too stupid to consider any other possibility.And remember : this comes down to a couple of people .
They are embedded within a large organization , but it is at the end of the day just them .
It is n't like there are huge teams on this .
An organization with clear lines of communication and responsibility would make it easy for the people in question to talk to each other , and the issue would be resolved .
But that would be smart , and there is nothing smart about the people working for American banks these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this and the example listed here are a perfect example of how a bank can get so large that they can't even deal with themselves.It's not the size, it's the stupidity.Everything I know about management I learned from the "telephone game" we played as kids, where you whisper a message around in a circle and find that after about three hops it gets completely mangled.Stupid people ignore this phenomenon, and go through their lives acting as if telling someone something once is sufficient to get the message across.
Stupid people run stupid organizations that radically under-communicate.
Some people who are both stupid and evil use this to create private fiefdoms within organizations.Smart people recognize this phenomena, and create organizations with multiple, redundant and simple lines of communication, and work to keep policies clear and concise so they are harder to mangle in the communications process.Organizations run by stupid people are therefore extremely complex and hard to understand, whereas those run by smart people are generally simple.
This leads stupid people--who are vastly in the majority--to think that organizations run by smart people aren't very capable, because they are too stupid to realize that capability comes with simplicity, not complexity.Corporate America is hugely invested in the myth of complexity, and hires and trains managers accordingly.
Attempts to simplify are fought at every turn.
This creates the kind of environment where an organization can actively pursue and defend a lawsuit against itself, by itself, rather than carrying through the pro-forma motions required by law, because the people on both sides are too stupid to consider any other possibility.And remember:  this comes down to a couple of people.
They are embedded within a large organization, but it is at the end of the day just them.
It isn't like there are huge teams on this.
An organization with clear lines of communication and responsibility would make it easy for the people in question to talk to each other, and the issue would be resolved.
But that would be smart, and there is nothing smart about the people working for American banks these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28695633</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>Pranadevil2k</author>
	<datestamp>1247563320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most phone operators are instructed to end and immediately forward a call to a supervisor the moment you ever mention lawyers or legal action. This isn't necessarily a good thing, especially when you're talking to a company that is run almost entirely by lawyers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most phone operators are instructed to end and immediately forward a call to a supervisor the moment you ever mention lawyers or legal action .
This is n't necessarily a good thing , especially when you 're talking to a company that is run almost entirely by lawyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most phone operators are instructed to end and immediately forward a call to a supervisor the moment you ever mention lawyers or legal action.
This isn't necessarily a good thing, especially when you're talking to a company that is run almost entirely by lawyers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682241</id>
	<title>Apparently the practice is quite common...</title>
	<author>levicivita</author>
	<datestamp>1247478000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... based on lawyerly-sounding comments in response to the article.  IANAL so I do not have a clue whether the technical argument is correct or not.  I still stand by the author of the original article, and agree with him that this practice, whether consistent with the law or not, is idiotic. <br> <br> <i> Florida is a judicial foreclosure state. Meaning all foreclosures are addressed by the court system. The Florida law requires that the lienholder bringing foreclosure suit against the defaulting borrower.....also include ALL junior lienholders in the suit. Wells fargo also has a junior lien. Hence it names itself as a defendent. A responsibility of the Junior lien holders is to re-affirm their lien....if it still exists. If they don't respond to the complaint...the court assumes the lien is no longer valid. Because a foreclosure can be set aside if the plaintif doesn't follow the letter of the law... Wells names itself as a defendent. Al's article sites a foreclosure attorney...who states this is fairly common in Florida now for banks holding two liens against a property. So how dumb is Wells suing itself?? It is not. It conforms to the letter of the law. And again, Al's article notes it is a frequent event in Florida today. Second...whether Wells loaned 100\% of the property's value via its too loans...we do not know!! If this was a "dumb" loan to start with...how do we know without seeing the loan file and application? And this will not be shared by a bank under privacy rules. I looked into this because this article seemed too hard to believe.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>... based on lawyerly-sounding comments in response to the article .
IANAL so I do not have a clue whether the technical argument is correct or not .
I still stand by the author of the original article , and agree with him that this practice , whether consistent with the law or not , is idiotic .
Florida is a judicial foreclosure state .
Meaning all foreclosures are addressed by the court system .
The Florida law requires that the lienholder bringing foreclosure suit against the defaulting borrower.....also include ALL junior lienholders in the suit .
Wells fargo also has a junior lien .
Hence it names itself as a defendent .
A responsibility of the Junior lien holders is to re-affirm their lien....if it still exists .
If they do n't respond to the complaint...the court assumes the lien is no longer valid .
Because a foreclosure can be set aside if the plaintif does n't follow the letter of the law... Wells names itself as a defendent .
Al 's article sites a foreclosure attorney...who states this is fairly common in Florida now for banks holding two liens against a property .
So how dumb is Wells suing itself ? ?
It is not .
It conforms to the letter of the law .
And again , Al 's article notes it is a frequent event in Florida today .
Second...whether Wells loaned 100 \ % of the property 's value via its too loans...we do not know ! !
If this was a " dumb " loan to start with...how do we know without seeing the loan file and application ?
And this will not be shared by a bank under privacy rules .
I looked into this because this article seemed too hard to believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... based on lawyerly-sounding comments in response to the article.
IANAL so I do not have a clue whether the technical argument is correct or not.
I still stand by the author of the original article, and agree with him that this practice, whether consistent with the law or not, is idiotic.
Florida is a judicial foreclosure state.
Meaning all foreclosures are addressed by the court system.
The Florida law requires that the lienholder bringing foreclosure suit against the defaulting borrower.....also include ALL junior lienholders in the suit.
Wells fargo also has a junior lien.
Hence it names itself as a defendent.
A responsibility of the Junior lien holders is to re-affirm their lien....if it still exists.
If they don't respond to the complaint...the court assumes the lien is no longer valid.
Because a foreclosure can be set aside if the plaintif doesn't follow the letter of the law... Wells names itself as a defendent.
Al's article sites a foreclosure attorney...who states this is fairly common in Florida now for banks holding two liens against a property.
So how dumb is Wells suing itself??
It is not.
It conforms to the letter of the law.
And again, Al's article notes it is a frequent event in Florida today.
Second...whether Wells loaned 100\% of the property's value via its too loans...we do not know!!
If this was a "dumb" loan to start with...how do we know without seeing the loan file and application?
And this will not be shared by a bank under privacy rules.
I looked into this because this article seemed too hard to believe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680591</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>Joe Snipe</author>
	<datestamp>1247514240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless WElls Fargo appeals the case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless WElls Fargo appeals the case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless WElls Fargo appeals the case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679919</id>
	<title>If anyone knows about sueing themselves it's</title>
	<author>doconnor</author>
	<datestamp>1247511840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/oct/29/tvnews.internationalnews" title="guardian.co.uk">FoxNews</a> [guardian.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FoxNews [ guardian.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FoxNews [guardian.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682455</id>
	<title>Re:Syndication of the loan...</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1247478900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>without the appearance of impropriety.</p></div><p>Essentially this whole case is about outsourcing the risk of corruption to the legal system/judge.</p><p>If they didn't get the judge involved, then at any time in the past, WF could have lied to the CDO holders by saying "uh, you know that interest payment you been gettin? we say you aint getting that no more" and no one would have been the wiser, although WF would have been richer.</p><p>WF has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the CDO holders at the same time as it has a fiduciary responsibility to protect themselves, thus buying into a deal where one bank owns both sides of a 80/20 is pretty dumb, although the legal system is involved to at least try to protect the CDO holders from gross corruption.</p><p>This way, the judge verifies its an honest deal, a real genuine foreclosure, on the judges word the CDO holders are screwed and the CDO holders can at least probably trust the judge is telling the truth, or at least truer than WF whom is working both sides since they own both sides....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>without the appearance of impropriety.Essentially this whole case is about outsourcing the risk of corruption to the legal system/judge.If they did n't get the judge involved , then at any time in the past , WF could have lied to the CDO holders by saying " uh , you know that interest payment you been gettin ?
we say you aint getting that no more " and no one would have been the wiser , although WF would have been richer.WF has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the CDO holders at the same time as it has a fiduciary responsibility to protect themselves , thus buying into a deal where one bank owns both sides of a 80/20 is pretty dumb , although the legal system is involved to at least try to protect the CDO holders from gross corruption.This way , the judge verifies its an honest deal , a real genuine foreclosure , on the judges word the CDO holders are screwed and the CDO holders can at least probably trust the judge is telling the truth , or at least truer than WF whom is working both sides since they own both sides... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>without the appearance of impropriety.Essentially this whole case is about outsourcing the risk of corruption to the legal system/judge.If they didn't get the judge involved, then at any time in the past, WF could have lied to the CDO holders by saying "uh, you know that interest payment you been gettin?
we say you aint getting that no more" and no one would have been the wiser, although WF would have been richer.WF has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the CDO holders at the same time as it has a fiduciary responsibility to protect themselves, thus buying into a deal where one bank owns both sides of a 80/20 is pretty dumb, although the legal system is involved to at least try to protect the CDO holders from gross corruption.This way, the judge verifies its an honest deal, a real genuine foreclosure, on the judges word the CDO holders are screwed and the CDO holders can at least probably trust the judge is telling the truth, or at least truer than WF whom is working both sides since they own both sides....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681725</id>
	<title>The lawyers always win</title>
	<author>JoeF</author>
	<datestamp>1247475780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just proof that in any lawsuit, the only people to always win are the lawyers.<br>Here, we have two law firms getting money from Wells Fargo.<br>And if they continue with this kind of stupidity, Wells Fargo may need another bailout...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just proof that in any lawsuit , the only people to always win are the lawyers.Here , we have two law firms getting money from Wells Fargo.And if they continue with this kind of stupidity , Wells Fargo may need another bailout.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just proof that in any lawsuit, the only people to always win are the lawyers.Here, we have two law firms getting money from Wells Fargo.And if they continue with this kind of stupidity, Wells Fargo may need another bailout...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679569</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247510820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too big to not fail?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too big to not fail ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too big to not fail?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28683411</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1247482860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole point of 80/20's and such is to offload some of the risk on a questionable loan. When WF covered its own bet because it had doubts about that same deal unless somebody covered part of the risk, common sense went out the window right there. Expecting the law to work well in such a case is expecting the impossible, like demanding justice be tempered with mercy for the man who shot his parents, because he's an orphan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole point of 80/20 's and such is to offload some of the risk on a questionable loan .
When WF covered its own bet because it had doubts about that same deal unless somebody covered part of the risk , common sense went out the window right there .
Expecting the law to work well in such a case is expecting the impossible , like demanding justice be tempered with mercy for the man who shot his parents , because he 's an orphan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole point of 80/20's and such is to offload some of the risk on a questionable loan.
When WF covered its own bet because it had doubts about that same deal unless somebody covered part of the risk, common sense went out the window right there.
Expecting the law to work well in such a case is expecting the impossible, like demanding justice be tempered with mercy for the man who shot his parents, because he's an orphan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680347</id>
	<title>Re:Florida requires it?!</title>
	<author>gurps\_npc</author>
	<datestamp>1247513280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That would make sense<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if their second set of lawyers admitted defeat and settle.

But having a second set of lawyers actually deny claims of the first/defend the company makes ZERO sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would make sense ... if their second set of lawyers admitted defeat and settle .
But having a second set of lawyers actually deny claims of the first/defend the company makes ZERO sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would make sense ... if their second set of lawyers admitted defeat and settle.
But having a second set of lawyers actually deny claims of the first/defend the company makes ZERO sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680807</id>
	<title>They do this stuff all the time</title>
	<author>mschuyler</author>
	<datestamp>1247515320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My mortgage was with them. I paid it off. Rather than release the title to me, they 're-conveyed' the trustee from the loan department to the pay-off department, complete with a filing to my County, then the pay-off department re-conveyed the title to me. WTF? When I called to ask what was going on, they didn't know! Finally I got together with my county auditor who explained to me what happened. I DO have clear title----I think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My mortgage was with them .
I paid it off .
Rather than release the title to me , they 're-conveyed ' the trustee from the loan department to the pay-off department , complete with a filing to my County , then the pay-off department re-conveyed the title to me .
WTF ? When I called to ask what was going on , they did n't know !
Finally I got together with my county auditor who explained to me what happened .
I DO have clear title----I think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My mortgage was with them.
I paid it off.
Rather than release the title to me, they 're-conveyed' the trustee from the loan department to the pay-off department, complete with a filing to my County, then the pay-off department re-conveyed the title to me.
WTF? When I called to ask what was going on, they didn't know!
Finally I got together with my county auditor who explained to me what happened.
I DO have clear title----I think.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28685425</id>
	<title>Re:Florida requires it?!</title>
	<author>mattwarden</author>
	<datestamp>1247497740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't RTFA and I immediately knew this was a logical reaction to completely illogical bureaucracy. What's ridiculous is that I had to go 3/4 down the comment page in order to find the first person pointing this out in a comment! Oh, Slashdot...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't RTFA and I immediately knew this was a logical reaction to completely illogical bureaucracy .
What 's ridiculous is that I had to go 3/4 down the comment page in order to find the first person pointing this out in a comment !
Oh , Slashdot.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't RTFA and I immediately knew this was a logical reaction to completely illogical bureaucracy.
What's ridiculous is that I had to go 3/4 down the comment page in order to find the first person pointing this out in a comment!
Oh, Slashdot...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681803</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>mccrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247476140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, this is the norm as organizations get large.</p><p>Remember this, as the largest and most dysfunctional organization of them all is about to be in charge of your health care.  Good times!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , this is the norm as organizations get large.Remember this , as the largest and most dysfunctional organization of them all is about to be in charge of your health care .
Good times !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, this is the norm as organizations get large.Remember this, as the largest and most dysfunctional organization of them all is about to be in charge of your health care.
Good times!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682465</id>
	<title>Re:Crazy like a fox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247478960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WF is claiming insanity.  The case won't be discharged as only a sane person would claim insanity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WF is claiming insanity .
The case wo n't be discharged as only a sane person would claim insanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WF is claiming insanity.
The case won't be discharged as only a sane person would claim insanity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679429</id>
	<title>Oh, dear Atheismo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247510460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not satire... I weep for humanity</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not satire... I weep for humanity</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not satire... I weep for humanity</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679813</id>
	<title>Stupidity countdown</title>
	<author>bperkins</author>
	<datestamp>1247511480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>By my count, the bank is only the fifth stupidest here.<br>Let's count it down:<br><br>5) Wells Fargo<br><br>For getting itself in the position of having to sue itself<br><br>4) Florida State government<br><br>For writing a law that requires a bank to sue itself.<br><br>3) Al Lewis/Fox News<br><br>For writing/publishing this worthless article.<br><br>2)  samzenpus<br><br>For posting this on slashdot.<br><br>1) Me<br><br>For commenting on this crap.<br><br>But if it makes you feel better, go ahead and pile scorn on the banks.<br><br>It'll take your mind off the fact that you're the real sucker.</htmltext>
<tokenext>By my count , the bank is only the fifth stupidest here.Let 's count it down : 5 ) Wells FargoFor getting itself in the position of having to sue itself4 ) Florida State governmentFor writing a law that requires a bank to sue itself.3 ) Al Lewis/Fox NewsFor writing/publishing this worthless article.2 ) samzenpusFor posting this on slashdot.1 ) MeFor commenting on this crap.But if it makes you feel better , go ahead and pile scorn on the banks.It 'll take your mind off the fact that you 're the real sucker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By my count, the bank is only the fifth stupidest here.Let's count it down:5) Wells FargoFor getting itself in the position of having to sue itself4) Florida State governmentFor writing a law that requires a bank to sue itself.3) Al Lewis/Fox NewsFor writing/publishing this worthless article.2)  samzenpusFor posting this on slashdot.1) MeFor commenting on this crap.But if it makes you feel better, go ahead and pile scorn on the banks.It'll take your mind off the fact that you're the real sucker.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681827</id>
	<title>All your lawsuits are belong to us...</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1247476200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have met the enemy and they are us! Charge! Interest! Damn the logic! Full Speed Ahead! Aaaaaaaaaaaagh!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have met the enemy and they are us !
Charge ! Interest !
Damn the logic !
Full Speed Ahead !
Aaaaaaaaaaaagh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have met the enemy and they are us!
Charge! Interest!
Damn the logic!
Full Speed Ahead!
Aaaaaaaaaaaagh!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684057</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247486760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have another horror story about Wells Fargo.  I serve as treasurer for a non-profit organization which leased a high-speed multifunction copier/printer/scanner/fax machine in 2001 to print our newsletter.  The lease was for five years and administered through Wells Fargo Financial Leasing.  At the end of the five years, after paying thousands of dollars in lease payments at $300/month, they told us that to close the lease, we could either purchase the machine outright for $360, or pay $500 to have it shipped to a recycling/salvage facility in Texarkana, Arkansas. The non-profit, of course, decided to pay the $360 and contract with a local printer company to service the machine, which still worked well, even though it was no longer under warranty.</p><p>Everything seemed fine until Wells Fargo started sending us bills about six months later.  Since the lease had ended and the non-profit owned the machine, I ignored the bills and just threw them away.  Then I got a call from Wells Fargo demanding another paymnet of $249, saying the account was never closed and the $249 represented accrued interest.  I faxed Wells Fargo all the paperwork and copies of the cancelled checks to prove that the lease had ended and that we owned the machine outright.  I even used the very same multifunction machine in question to fax the paperwork back to them.</p><p>Wells Fargo insisted that the money was still owed, and continued to send invoices and made threatening phone calls.  They finally turned it over to a collection agency, which made more threatening phone calls.  Not wishing to harm our credit standing, I asked the board of the non-profit for authorization to pay the bogus bill and they agreed just so we could close the matter.</p><p>Then, six months later, we received a refund check from Wells Fargo for $95.  Wells Fargo apparently figured out they over-charged us for some reason, but there was no explanation for the refund check nor any detailed accounting of what was being refunded or why.  It was just an envelope with a check enclosed.</p><p>The board of the non-profit has now passed a resolution that we will never do any business with Wells Fargo ever again, nor will we maintain a bank account with Bank of America or any other bank that accepted TARP funds.  My current task as treasurer is to move all our money out of BofA (which has been our bank since the organization was founded in 1974) and into a different bank that has not taken any taxpayer bailout money.  Believe it or not, there still are a few around (e.g., Union Bank, USBank, Mechanics Bank and Pacific National Bank are four that we are considering).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have another horror story about Wells Fargo .
I serve as treasurer for a non-profit organization which leased a high-speed multifunction copier/printer/scanner/fax machine in 2001 to print our newsletter .
The lease was for five years and administered through Wells Fargo Financial Leasing .
At the end of the five years , after paying thousands of dollars in lease payments at $ 300/month , they told us that to close the lease , we could either purchase the machine outright for $ 360 , or pay $ 500 to have it shipped to a recycling/salvage facility in Texarkana , Arkansas .
The non-profit , of course , decided to pay the $ 360 and contract with a local printer company to service the machine , which still worked well , even though it was no longer under warranty.Everything seemed fine until Wells Fargo started sending us bills about six months later .
Since the lease had ended and the non-profit owned the machine , I ignored the bills and just threw them away .
Then I got a call from Wells Fargo demanding another paymnet of $ 249 , saying the account was never closed and the $ 249 represented accrued interest .
I faxed Wells Fargo all the paperwork and copies of the cancelled checks to prove that the lease had ended and that we owned the machine outright .
I even used the very same multifunction machine in question to fax the paperwork back to them.Wells Fargo insisted that the money was still owed , and continued to send invoices and made threatening phone calls .
They finally turned it over to a collection agency , which made more threatening phone calls .
Not wishing to harm our credit standing , I asked the board of the non-profit for authorization to pay the bogus bill and they agreed just so we could close the matter.Then , six months later , we received a refund check from Wells Fargo for $ 95 .
Wells Fargo apparently figured out they over-charged us for some reason , but there was no explanation for the refund check nor any detailed accounting of what was being refunded or why .
It was just an envelope with a check enclosed.The board of the non-profit has now passed a resolution that we will never do any business with Wells Fargo ever again , nor will we maintain a bank account with Bank of America or any other bank that accepted TARP funds .
My current task as treasurer is to move all our money out of BofA ( which has been our bank since the organization was founded in 1974 ) and into a different bank that has not taken any taxpayer bailout money .
Believe it or not , there still are a few around ( e.g. , Union Bank , USBank , Mechanics Bank and Pacific National Bank are four that we are considering ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have another horror story about Wells Fargo.
I serve as treasurer for a non-profit organization which leased a high-speed multifunction copier/printer/scanner/fax machine in 2001 to print our newsletter.
The lease was for five years and administered through Wells Fargo Financial Leasing.
At the end of the five years, after paying thousands of dollars in lease payments at $300/month, they told us that to close the lease, we could either purchase the machine outright for $360, or pay $500 to have it shipped to a recycling/salvage facility in Texarkana, Arkansas.
The non-profit, of course, decided to pay the $360 and contract with a local printer company to service the machine, which still worked well, even though it was no longer under warranty.Everything seemed fine until Wells Fargo started sending us bills about six months later.
Since the lease had ended and the non-profit owned the machine, I ignored the bills and just threw them away.
Then I got a call from Wells Fargo demanding another paymnet of $249, saying the account was never closed and the $249 represented accrued interest.
I faxed Wells Fargo all the paperwork and copies of the cancelled checks to prove that the lease had ended and that we owned the machine outright.
I even used the very same multifunction machine in question to fax the paperwork back to them.Wells Fargo insisted that the money was still owed, and continued to send invoices and made threatening phone calls.
They finally turned it over to a collection agency, which made more threatening phone calls.
Not wishing to harm our credit standing, I asked the board of the non-profit for authorization to pay the bogus bill and they agreed just so we could close the matter.Then, six months later, we received a refund check from Wells Fargo for $95.
Wells Fargo apparently figured out they over-charged us for some reason, but there was no explanation for the refund check nor any detailed accounting of what was being refunded or why.
It was just an envelope with a check enclosed.The board of the non-profit has now passed a resolution that we will never do any business with Wells Fargo ever again, nor will we maintain a bank account with Bank of America or any other bank that accepted TARP funds.
My current task as treasurer is to move all our money out of BofA (which has been our bank since the organization was founded in 1974) and into a different bank that has not taken any taxpayer bailout money.
Believe it or not, there still are a few around (e.g., Union Bank, USBank, Mechanics Bank and Pacific National Bank are four that we are considering).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679893</id>
	<title>Win-Win!</title>
	<author>georgenh16</author>
	<datestamp>1247511780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they lose, the government will bail them out!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they lose , the government will bail them out !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they lose, the government will bail them out!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682551</id>
	<title>Re:Latest news</title>
	<author>Larry Lightbulb</author>
	<datestamp>1247479260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I keep my money in a numbered Swiss mattress.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I keep my money in a numbered Swiss mattress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I keep my money in a numbered Swiss mattress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28683603</id>
	<title>Sue yourself... and win!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247484120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many years ago - I was in college... we were having some fun with *cough* windowpane *cough* and started dreaming up things...  Topping the list was "Sue yourself... and win!" as the title of a book for newly minted lawyers...</p><p>I never in my wildest dreams thought that crazy trip would ever actually come to fruition...  Go Wells Fargo!  Share the wealth!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many years ago - I was in college... we were having some fun with * cough * windowpane * cough * and started dreaming up things... Topping the list was " Sue yourself... and win !
" as the title of a book for newly minted lawyers...I never in my wildest dreams thought that crazy trip would ever actually come to fruition... Go Wells Fargo !
Share the wealth !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many years ago - I was in college... we were having some fun with *cough* windowpane *cough* and started dreaming up things...  Topping the list was "Sue yourself... and win!
" as the title of a book for newly minted lawyers...I never in my wildest dreams thought that crazy trip would ever actually come to fruition...  Go Wells Fargo!
Share the wealth!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679747</id>
	<title>And the winner is...</title>
	<author>freejung</author>
	<datestamp>1247511300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The lawyers!
<p>
It actually makes a perverse kind of sense though. Banks can effectively lend money to themselves, so they should be able to sue themselves too!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The lawyers !
It actually makes a perverse kind of sense though .
Banks can effectively lend money to themselves , so they should be able to sue themselves too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lawyers!
It actually makes a perverse kind of sense though.
Banks can effectively lend money to themselves, so they should be able to sue themselves too!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28683683</id>
	<title>Why this makes sense (to a lawyer)</title>
	<author>sampson7</author>
	<datestamp>1247484540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, what they are doing makes perfect sense and is in fact likely required by law.  More importantly, a court proceeding is the <i>only</i> fair way to conduct this type of proceeding.  <br> <br>Think about it -- most states require that a judge review a foreclosure before it can be processed.  One of the requirements is that before the property is sold that all potential lien holders must be contacted and given their chance to assert a claim.  In fact, before the property can be sold, the secondary lien must be extinguished -- which requires a court order.  Likely, the only way to proceed is to sue all the other lien holders. <br> <br>Don't forget -- Wells Fargo is about to foreclose on some poor soul, and it not only holds the first lien, but the second as well.  Likely, the two liens have different terms.  I suspect that there may be some mortgage insurance involved in this case.  It seems likely that the first lien is insured by a mortgage insurance company separate from Wells Fargo.  ACME Insurance Co. has an incentive to protect its investment by actively litigating to protect its interests vis-a-vis the second lien holder.  Most commercial insurance policies have a clause that allows the insurance company to appoint a lawyer to defend its interest.  Thus even though Wells Fargo NA is the litigant (on both sides), it's entirely possible that they have little control over the litigation of the case.
<br> <br>
Further, involving a judge when there is so obviously a conflict of interest is a good way to avoid being sued in the future.  Most likely, there is a "Chinese Wall" separating the different branches of Wells Fargo.  Wells Fargo has a fiduciary obligation to the landowner in this transaction.<br> <br>With any of these permutations, it is perfectly logical that Wells Fargo would file suit against itself where there is such a flagrant conflict of interest.  The presence of a judge in the proceeding -- at a minimum -- will give a veneer of credibility to the proceeding and (theoretically) ensure that the landowner's interests are represented.
<br> <br>
Taking the insurance example, it might be in Wells Fargo's interest to dump the costs into the first or second lien.  Generally, a first lien is less risky than the second lien.  Perhaps the first lien requires the lien holder to repay all costs associated with foreclosure, while the second lien does not.  Perhaps there is sufficient money in foreclosure to cover the first lien, but not the second.  The possible permutations are endless.  Either way, it is possible that Wells Fargo could serve its corporate interests by "rigging" the system in its favor.  <br> <br>Or it could be a big cock-up.  Pretty funny either way, but not necessarily crazy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , what they are doing makes perfect sense and is in fact likely required by law .
More importantly , a court proceeding is the only fair way to conduct this type of proceeding .
Think about it -- most states require that a judge review a foreclosure before it can be processed .
One of the requirements is that before the property is sold that all potential lien holders must be contacted and given their chance to assert a claim .
In fact , before the property can be sold , the secondary lien must be extinguished -- which requires a court order .
Likely , the only way to proceed is to sue all the other lien holders .
Do n't forget -- Wells Fargo is about to foreclose on some poor soul , and it not only holds the first lien , but the second as well .
Likely , the two liens have different terms .
I suspect that there may be some mortgage insurance involved in this case .
It seems likely that the first lien is insured by a mortgage insurance company separate from Wells Fargo .
ACME Insurance Co. has an incentive to protect its investment by actively litigating to protect its interests vis-a-vis the second lien holder .
Most commercial insurance policies have a clause that allows the insurance company to appoint a lawyer to defend its interest .
Thus even though Wells Fargo NA is the litigant ( on both sides ) , it 's entirely possible that they have little control over the litigation of the case .
Further , involving a judge when there is so obviously a conflict of interest is a good way to avoid being sued in the future .
Most likely , there is a " Chinese Wall " separating the different branches of Wells Fargo .
Wells Fargo has a fiduciary obligation to the landowner in this transaction .
With any of these permutations , it is perfectly logical that Wells Fargo would file suit against itself where there is such a flagrant conflict of interest .
The presence of a judge in the proceeding -- at a minimum -- will give a veneer of credibility to the proceeding and ( theoretically ) ensure that the landowner 's interests are represented .
Taking the insurance example , it might be in Wells Fargo 's interest to dump the costs into the first or second lien .
Generally , a first lien is less risky than the second lien .
Perhaps the first lien requires the lien holder to repay all costs associated with foreclosure , while the second lien does not .
Perhaps there is sufficient money in foreclosure to cover the first lien , but not the second .
The possible permutations are endless .
Either way , it is possible that Wells Fargo could serve its corporate interests by " rigging " the system in its favor .
Or it could be a big cock-up .
Pretty funny either way , but not necessarily crazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, what they are doing makes perfect sense and is in fact likely required by law.
More importantly, a court proceeding is the only fair way to conduct this type of proceeding.
Think about it -- most states require that a judge review a foreclosure before it can be processed.
One of the requirements is that before the property is sold that all potential lien holders must be contacted and given their chance to assert a claim.
In fact, before the property can be sold, the secondary lien must be extinguished -- which requires a court order.
Likely, the only way to proceed is to sue all the other lien holders.
Don't forget -- Wells Fargo is about to foreclose on some poor soul, and it not only holds the first lien, but the second as well.
Likely, the two liens have different terms.
I suspect that there may be some mortgage insurance involved in this case.
It seems likely that the first lien is insured by a mortgage insurance company separate from Wells Fargo.
ACME Insurance Co. has an incentive to protect its investment by actively litigating to protect its interests vis-a-vis the second lien holder.
Most commercial insurance policies have a clause that allows the insurance company to appoint a lawyer to defend its interest.
Thus even though Wells Fargo NA is the litigant (on both sides), it's entirely possible that they have little control over the litigation of the case.
Further, involving a judge when there is so obviously a conflict of interest is a good way to avoid being sued in the future.
Most likely, there is a "Chinese Wall" separating the different branches of Wells Fargo.
Wells Fargo has a fiduciary obligation to the landowner in this transaction.
With any of these permutations, it is perfectly logical that Wells Fargo would file suit against itself where there is such a flagrant conflict of interest.
The presence of a judge in the proceeding -- at a minimum -- will give a veneer of credibility to the proceeding and (theoretically) ensure that the landowner's interests are represented.
Taking the insurance example, it might be in Wells Fargo's interest to dump the costs into the first or second lien.
Generally, a first lien is less risky than the second lien.
Perhaps the first lien requires the lien holder to repay all costs associated with foreclosure, while the second lien does not.
Perhaps there is sufficient money in foreclosure to cover the first lien, but not the second.
The possible permutations are endless.
Either way, it is possible that Wells Fargo could serve its corporate interests by "rigging" the system in its favor.
Or it could be a big cock-up.
Pretty funny either way, but not necessarily crazy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682281</id>
	<title>Adds new meaning to the term...</title>
	<author>Hawthorne01</author>
	<datestamp>1247478120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Suit yourself."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Suit yourself .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Suit yourself.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680219</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1247512860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It makes perfect sense for the property sales unit and the mortgage unit to be pursuing different agendas.</i></p><p>No it doesn't, its still one company.  There should already be a procedure in place to handle these kinds of conflicts.  The fact that there isn't just shows we should have let this bank fail, because clearly they don't know what the fuck they're doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It makes perfect sense for the property sales unit and the mortgage unit to be pursuing different agendas.No it does n't , its still one company .
There should already be a procedure in place to handle these kinds of conflicts .
The fact that there is n't just shows we should have let this bank fail , because clearly they do n't know what the fuck they 're doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It makes perfect sense for the property sales unit and the mortgage unit to be pursuing different agendas.No it doesn't, its still one company.
There should already be a procedure in place to handle these kinds of conflicts.
The fact that there isn't just shows we should have let this bank fail, because clearly they don't know what the fuck they're doing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681597</id>
	<title>Why am I reminded of the film...</title>
	<author>WolfTheWerewolf</author>
	<datestamp>1247518500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Road Lawyers"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Road Lawyers " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Road Lawyers"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680657</id>
	<title>Syndication of the loan...</title>
	<author>apederso</author>
	<datestamp>1247514600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem that most people aren't thinking about is that all though Wells Fargo is probably the servicer of the loan, and was definitely the originator of the loan, they have most likely syndicated the loan- packaging it into a CMO or CDO and resold the interest in the loan to a variety of parties.  The covenants of those CMOs often make it challenging to settle without legal action, so when Wells sues itself it may very well be because that is the only way to resolve the interests of one CMO holder (the people who bought the interest in the first loan) against the second CMO holder (the person who bought the interest in the second loan) without the appearance of impropriety.

I agree this is totally stupid, but the system is the problem here.  If we'd gone with a more transparent and regulated secondary market for mortgages such as the one that exists in Denmark <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish\_mortgage\_market" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow"> see wiki here</a> [wikipedia.org] we wouldn't have all these problems.  In Denmark the loans and the bond match each other very closely, and you can actually by the bond and use it to pay the mortgage, but that is material for another post...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem that most people are n't thinking about is that all though Wells Fargo is probably the servicer of the loan , and was definitely the originator of the loan , they have most likely syndicated the loan- packaging it into a CMO or CDO and resold the interest in the loan to a variety of parties .
The covenants of those CMOs often make it challenging to settle without legal action , so when Wells sues itself it may very well be because that is the only way to resolve the interests of one CMO holder ( the people who bought the interest in the first loan ) against the second CMO holder ( the person who bought the interest in the second loan ) without the appearance of impropriety .
I agree this is totally stupid , but the system is the problem here .
If we 'd gone with a more transparent and regulated secondary market for mortgages such as the one that exists in Denmark see wiki here [ wikipedia.org ] we would n't have all these problems .
In Denmark the loans and the bond match each other very closely , and you can actually by the bond and use it to pay the mortgage , but that is material for another post.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem that most people aren't thinking about is that all though Wells Fargo is probably the servicer of the loan, and was definitely the originator of the loan, they have most likely syndicated the loan- packaging it into a CMO or CDO and resold the interest in the loan to a variety of parties.
The covenants of those CMOs often make it challenging to settle without legal action, so when Wells sues itself it may very well be because that is the only way to resolve the interests of one CMO holder (the people who bought the interest in the first loan) against the second CMO holder (the person who bought the interest in the second loan) without the appearance of impropriety.
I agree this is totally stupid, but the system is the problem here.
If we'd gone with a more transparent and regulated secondary market for mortgages such as the one that exists in Denmark  see wiki here [wikipedia.org] we wouldn't have all these problems.
In Denmark the loans and the bond match each other very closely, and you can actually by the bond and use it to pay the mortgage, but that is material for another post...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679833</id>
	<title>Get in line</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1247511540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like a clear case of "heads, we win, tails, you lose". This lawsuit ensures that one part of wells fargo gets the proceeds of any auction or resale, and what's left over after satisfying the original note (yeah right)/ will still go to the other part of wells fargo. Maybe the 80\% note is subordinate to the 20\% note?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like a clear case of " heads , we win , tails , you lose " .
This lawsuit ensures that one part of wells fargo gets the proceeds of any auction or resale , and what 's left over after satisfying the original note ( yeah right ) / will still go to the other part of wells fargo .
Maybe the 80 \ % note is subordinate to the 20 \ % note ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like a clear case of "heads, we win, tails, you lose".
This lawsuit ensures that one part of wells fargo gets the proceeds of any auction or resale, and what's left over after satisfying the original note (yeah right)/ will still go to the other part of wells fargo.
Maybe the 80\% note is subordinate to the 20\% note?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28683713</id>
	<title>They read Ubersoft!</title>
	<author>Sebastian Reichelt</author>
	<datestamp>1247484840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OMG, XKCD is no longer the only comic to change the world:</p><p> <a href="http://www.ubersoft.net/comic/hd/2008/02/viktorgate/" title="ubersoft.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.ubersoft.net/comic/hd/2008/02/viktorgate/</a> [ubersoft.net] and following</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OMG , XKCD is no longer the only comic to change the world : http : //www.ubersoft.net/comic/hd/2008/02/viktorgate/ [ ubersoft.net ] and following</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OMG, XKCD is no longer the only comic to change the world: http://www.ubersoft.net/comic/hd/2008/02/viktorgate/ [ubersoft.net] and following</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679867</id>
	<title>Too big</title>
	<author>georgenh16</author>
	<datestamp>1247511660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any organization that gets too big is a breeding ground for such stupidity and infighting.
<br> <br>
Why we can't seem to learn that lesson and apply it to the government like our founding fathers did... this always saddens me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any organization that gets too big is a breeding ground for such stupidity and infighting .
Why we ca n't seem to learn that lesson and apply it to the government like our founding fathers did... this always saddens me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any organization that gets too big is a breeding ground for such stupidity and infighting.
Why we can't seem to learn that lesson and apply it to the government like our founding fathers did... this always saddens me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680055</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247512320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't use Wells Fargo.
<br> <br>
I had a investment property, and the loan was sold to Wells Fargo.  Several years ago I fell behind three months, so we reached an agreement and I started paying monthly again but that 3 months was always over my head.  Well 2 years later the they wanted the 3 months + interest.  I paid them the 3 months but didn't have the payment for the interest and continued making monthly payments.  6 months later they again wanted the interest.  Told them I didn't have it so they foreclosed, but first they surprised me with a check equaling a year's worth of payments.  I was told it was because they misappropriated my payments.
<br> <br>
Two months after the house was foreclosed they put it back on the market for about 1 year's worth of payments.  It's been on the market for nearly a year now.
<br> <br>
Had they simply let me continue making payments they would have already made more than the price they're selling the house for.  I'd love to just go pay for the house with cash they sent me, but it's been vandalized since and much of the $$$ was spent on purchasing and moving to a new house.
<br> <br>
I don't think anyone at Wells Fargo knows what's going on.  As a tax payer I'm disappointed that my $$$ went to a bank that wastes money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't use Wells Fargo .
I had a investment property , and the loan was sold to Wells Fargo .
Several years ago I fell behind three months , so we reached an agreement and I started paying monthly again but that 3 months was always over my head .
Well 2 years later the they wanted the 3 months + interest .
I paid them the 3 months but did n't have the payment for the interest and continued making monthly payments .
6 months later they again wanted the interest .
Told them I did n't have it so they foreclosed , but first they surprised me with a check equaling a year 's worth of payments .
I was told it was because they misappropriated my payments .
Two months after the house was foreclosed they put it back on the market for about 1 year 's worth of payments .
It 's been on the market for nearly a year now .
Had they simply let me continue making payments they would have already made more than the price they 're selling the house for .
I 'd love to just go pay for the house with cash they sent me , but it 's been vandalized since and much of the $ $ $ was spent on purchasing and moving to a new house .
I do n't think anyone at Wells Fargo knows what 's going on .
As a tax payer I 'm disappointed that my $ $ $ went to a bank that wastes money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't use Wells Fargo.
I had a investment property, and the loan was sold to Wells Fargo.
Several years ago I fell behind three months, so we reached an agreement and I started paying monthly again but that 3 months was always over my head.
Well 2 years later the they wanted the 3 months + interest.
I paid them the 3 months but didn't have the payment for the interest and continued making monthly payments.
6 months later they again wanted the interest.
Told them I didn't have it so they foreclosed, but first they surprised me with a check equaling a year's worth of payments.
I was told it was because they misappropriated my payments.
Two months after the house was foreclosed they put it back on the market for about 1 year's worth of payments.
It's been on the market for nearly a year now.
Had they simply let me continue making payments they would have already made more than the price they're selling the house for.
I'd love to just go pay for the house with cash they sent me, but it's been vandalized since and much of the $$$ was spent on purchasing and moving to a new house.
I don't think anyone at Wells Fargo knows what's going on.
As a tax payer I'm disappointed that my $$$ went to a bank that wastes money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680041</id>
	<title>Re:Florida requires it?!</title>
	<author>tmosley</author>
	<datestamp>1247512260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, they have to INFORM all lienholders.  <br> <br>

Just be glad I'm not Wells Fargo, or this would have counted as notice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they have to INFORM all lienholders .
Just be glad I 'm not Wells Fargo , or this would have counted as notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they have to INFORM all lienholders.
Just be glad I'm not Wells Fargo, or this would have counted as notice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681455</id>
	<title>Reference a Win!</title>
	<author>transluent\_eye</author>
	<datestamp>1247517960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah....but then they can cite this case in further cases as a win for themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah....but then they can cite this case in further cases as a win for themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah....but then they can cite this case in further cases as a win for themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684989</id>
	<title>Um, no.</title>
	<author>Estanislao Martínez</author>
	<datestamp>1247493060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Wells Fargo (holder of the senior mortgage) is trying to clear out all the subsidiary mortgage interests so that it can sell the property. In the process of doing so, it has to sue itself for record-keeping purposes - if I'm going to buy some property, I want a clear case record showing that all existing claims have been discharged.</p></div></blockquote><p>Um, a few points:
</p><ol>
<li>Courts don't exist for record-keeping.  They exist to settle disputes between legal persons.</li>
<li>The record is clarified plenty enough by WFC, as plaintiff, simply demonstrating in its filings that it is <b>both</b> the primary lien holder <b>and</b> one of the secondary lien holders.</li>
<li>WFC cannot complain that it was damaged by the discharge of all of the secondary liens when this was done in favor of its own primary lien.  Why?  Because in that situation, WFC's primary claim was left as the only claim--which means that <b>all</b> of the money that is recovered goes to WFC, and WFC would not stand to get any more redress if its secondary claim was left.</li>
</ol></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wells Fargo ( holder of the senior mortgage ) is trying to clear out all the subsidiary mortgage interests so that it can sell the property .
In the process of doing so , it has to sue itself for record-keeping purposes - if I 'm going to buy some property , I want a clear case record showing that all existing claims have been discharged.Um , a few points : Courts do n't exist for record-keeping .
They exist to settle disputes between legal persons .
The record is clarified plenty enough by WFC , as plaintiff , simply demonstrating in its filings that it is both the primary lien holder and one of the secondary lien holders .
WFC can not complain that it was damaged by the discharge of all of the secondary liens when this was done in favor of its own primary lien .
Why ? Because in that situation , WFC 's primary claim was left as the only claim--which means that all of the money that is recovered goes to WFC , and WFC would not stand to get any more redress if its secondary claim was left .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wells Fargo (holder of the senior mortgage) is trying to clear out all the subsidiary mortgage interests so that it can sell the property.
In the process of doing so, it has to sue itself for record-keeping purposes - if I'm going to buy some property, I want a clear case record showing that all existing claims have been discharged.Um, a few points:

Courts don't exist for record-keeping.
They exist to settle disputes between legal persons.
The record is clarified plenty enough by WFC, as plaintiff, simply demonstrating in its filings that it is both the primary lien holder and one of the secondary lien holders.
WFC cannot complain that it was damaged by the discharge of all of the secondary liens when this was done in favor of its own primary lien.
Why?  Because in that situation, WFC's primary claim was left as the only claim--which means that all of the money that is recovered goes to WFC, and WFC would not stand to get any more redress if its secondary claim was left.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682003</id>
	<title>Python</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247476980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And in the red corner, all the way from Rygate, in Mozambique, Colin "Bomber" Harris...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And in the red corner , all the way from Rygate , in Mozambique , Colin " Bomber " Harris.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And in the red corner, all the way from Rygate, in Mozambique, Colin "Bomber" Harris...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679887</id>
	<title>I believe the ACLU beat them to it</title>
	<author>gmagill</author>
	<datestamp>1247511720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.byproducts.com/art/2000/5/958683840/index.html" title="byproducts.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.byproducts.com/art/2000/5/958683840/index.html</a> [byproducts.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.byproducts.com/art/2000/5/958683840/index.html [ byproducts.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.byproducts.com/art/2000/5/958683840/index.html [byproducts.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680009</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1247512140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's only confusing if you assume that corporations are one monolithic entity.</p></div><p>In fact, they're the exact opposite of a monolithic entity.</p><p>The monolith made our monkey ancestors more intelligent.  Corporations are making us more stupidity again =(</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's only confusing if you assume that corporations are one monolithic entity.In fact , they 're the exact opposite of a monolithic entity.The monolith made our monkey ancestors more intelligent .
Corporations are making us more stupidity again = (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's only confusing if you assume that corporations are one monolithic entity.In fact, they're the exact opposite of a monolithic entity.The monolith made our monkey ancestors more intelligent.
Corporations are making us more stupidity again =(
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679861</id>
	<title>Crazy like a fox</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1247511660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From another article on the same subject <a href="http://www.doomers.us/forum2/index.php?action=printpage;topic=48933.0" title="doomers.us">http://www.doomers.us/forum2/index.php?action=printpage;topic=48933.0</a> [doomers.us] </p><blockquote><div><p>Attorney McKillop explains that to avoid suing itself a lender would typically release the lien against the property after the foreclosure goes through. By suing itself, the company avoids the step of having to file that additional paperwork.  That, in effect, speeds up the time it takes to sell the property after foreclosing.</p></div></blockquote><p>(McKillop represents the real defendant, the homeowner).</p><p>Seems like this is just a procedural trick to get the second lien dismissed during the original foreclosure case.  Apparently Wells Fargo thinks it's worth paying an extra lawyer rather than having to wait for the voluntary release of the lien to go through.  Pretty silly, but it is \_Florida\_ law at issue, after all...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From another article on the same subject http : //www.doomers.us/forum2/index.php ? action = printpage ; topic = 48933.0 [ doomers.us ] Attorney McKillop explains that to avoid suing itself a lender would typically release the lien against the property after the foreclosure goes through .
By suing itself , the company avoids the step of having to file that additional paperwork .
That , in effect , speeds up the time it takes to sell the property after foreclosing .
( McKillop represents the real defendant , the homeowner ) .Seems like this is just a procedural trick to get the second lien dismissed during the original foreclosure case .
Apparently Wells Fargo thinks it 's worth paying an extra lawyer rather than having to wait for the voluntary release of the lien to go through .
Pretty silly , but it is \ _Florida \ _ law at issue , after all.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From another article on the same subject http://www.doomers.us/forum2/index.php?action=printpage;topic=48933.0 [doomers.us] Attorney McKillop explains that to avoid suing itself a lender would typically release the lien against the property after the foreclosure goes through.
By suing itself, the company avoids the step of having to file that additional paperwork.
That, in effect, speeds up the time it takes to sell the property after foreclosing.
(McKillop represents the real defendant, the homeowner).Seems like this is just a procedural trick to get the second lien dismissed during the original foreclosure case.
Apparently Wells Fargo thinks it's worth paying an extra lawyer rather than having to wait for the voluntary release of the lien to go through.
Pretty silly, but it is \_Florida\_ law at issue, after all...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679637</id>
	<title>Are they pessimists or optimists?</title>
	<author>K. S. Kyosuke</author>
	<datestamp>1247510940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's an important question: Whether it's a win-win scenario or a lose-lose scenario for them depends on it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's an important question : Whether it 's a win-win scenario or a lose-lose scenario for them depends on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's an important question: Whether it's a win-win scenario or a lose-lose scenario for them depends on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28683097</id>
	<title>Re:You can Do that?</title>
	<author>ajs</author>
	<datestamp>1247481540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may sound funny, but it's not, and in fact WF is doing the right thing.</p><p>If you follow this story, you'll note that they've responded to concerns from investors and the press alike noting that this is a typical process, and that they're not "suing themselves," but filing a motion to have the court intercede in a matter that's federally regulated. They're naming themselves because they're involved in both sides of the transaction, which is correct procedure.</p><p>Think of it this way. You buy my car and loan me the money to do so. Then you find that the car isn't up to local lemon laws. You want to take me to court to require me to upgrade the car as appropriate, but the state requires that you name lenders as well as the seller. Thus, you name yourself on the suit. Nothing odd, here, and it's not that you're being stupid. You're just doing the paperwork correctly and getting the end-result that you wanted (upgraded car in accordance with law).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may sound funny , but it 's not , and in fact WF is doing the right thing.If you follow this story , you 'll note that they 've responded to concerns from investors and the press alike noting that this is a typical process , and that they 're not " suing themselves , " but filing a motion to have the court intercede in a matter that 's federally regulated .
They 're naming themselves because they 're involved in both sides of the transaction , which is correct procedure.Think of it this way .
You buy my car and loan me the money to do so .
Then you find that the car is n't up to local lemon laws .
You want to take me to court to require me to upgrade the car as appropriate , but the state requires that you name lenders as well as the seller .
Thus , you name yourself on the suit .
Nothing odd , here , and it 's not that you 're being stupid .
You 're just doing the paperwork correctly and getting the end-result that you wanted ( upgraded car in accordance with law ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may sound funny, but it's not, and in fact WF is doing the right thing.If you follow this story, you'll note that they've responded to concerns from investors and the press alike noting that this is a typical process, and that they're not "suing themselves," but filing a motion to have the court intercede in a matter that's federally regulated.
They're naming themselves because they're involved in both sides of the transaction, which is correct procedure.Think of it this way.
You buy my car and loan me the money to do so.
Then you find that the car isn't up to local lemon laws.
You want to take me to court to require me to upgrade the car as appropriate, but the state requires that you name lenders as well as the seller.
Thus, you name yourself on the suit.
Nothing odd, here, and it's not that you're being stupid.
You're just doing the paperwork correctly and getting the end-result that you wanted (upgraded car in accordance with law).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681247</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>DarKnyht</author>
	<datestamp>1247517120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And if you are smart you will jump through the hoops for the twenty times they will require it.  I informed them and my insurance company at vehicle purchase, when I got said letter, and multiple times after the fact.</p><p>In the end, I had to threaten Wells Fargo with the Better Business Bureau in order to get them to remove the charges for insurance that I refused to pay for (since I had already been insured and notified them multiple times of it).  Even then, it took two months to get the statements fixed (or least I gave up at that point, I still am fairly sure they screwed it up.)</p><p>As a Wells Fargo customer, the best advice I can give you is find another company to do business with even if the deal is not as good.  That extra money paid is well worth avoiding Wells Fargo's stupidity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And if you are smart you will jump through the hoops for the twenty times they will require it .
I informed them and my insurance company at vehicle purchase , when I got said letter , and multiple times after the fact.In the end , I had to threaten Wells Fargo with the Better Business Bureau in order to get them to remove the charges for insurance that I refused to pay for ( since I had already been insured and notified them multiple times of it ) .
Even then , it took two months to get the statements fixed ( or least I gave up at that point , I still am fairly sure they screwed it up .
) As a Wells Fargo customer , the best advice I can give you is find another company to do business with even if the deal is not as good .
That extra money paid is well worth avoiding Wells Fargo 's stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if you are smart you will jump through the hoops for the twenty times they will require it.
I informed them and my insurance company at vehicle purchase, when I got said letter, and multiple times after the fact.In the end, I had to threaten Wells Fargo with the Better Business Bureau in order to get them to remove the charges for insurance that I refused to pay for (since I had already been insured and notified them multiple times of it).
Even then, it took two months to get the statements fixed (or least I gave up at that point, I still am fairly sure they screwed it up.
)As a Wells Fargo customer, the best advice I can give you is find another company to do business with even if the deal is not as good.
That extra money paid is well worth avoiding Wells Fargo's stupidity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681589</id>
	<title>Re:Stupidity countdown</title>
	<author>DrMaurer</author>
	<datestamp>1247518440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why am I the sucker? You replied to the article.</p><p>Wait...crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why am I the sucker ?
You replied to the article.Wait...crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why am I the sucker?
You replied to the article.Wait...crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681089</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>gnick</author>
	<datestamp>1247516520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Corporations are making us more stupidity again =(</p></div><p>There's something oddly beautiful about that statement.  But it hurts my brain as I try to figure out exactly what.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporations are making us more stupidity again = ( There 's something oddly beautiful about that statement .
But it hurts my brain as I try to figure out exactly what .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corporations are making us more stupidity again =(There's something oddly beautiful about that statement.
But it hurts my brain as I try to figure out exactly what.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681721</id>
	<title>Don't call it idiocy too hastily</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1247475720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember Visa offering people so deeply over their head in debt that they can jump ship if they offer to close their account with them and their debt is forgiven. That way they can file for bailouts and, unlike people who are in over their head, the government can actually (at least so far...) pay.</p><p>I could well see something like this here too, just a hint more nefarious. Could you see something like "sue - get title - get no money from debitor - get bailout"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember Visa offering people so deeply over their head in debt that they can jump ship if they offer to close their account with them and their debt is forgiven .
That way they can file for bailouts and , unlike people who are in over their head , the government can actually ( at least so far... ) pay.I could well see something like this here too , just a hint more nefarious .
Could you see something like " sue - get title - get no money from debitor - get bailout " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember Visa offering people so deeply over their head in debt that they can jump ship if they offer to close their account with them and their debt is forgiven.
That way they can file for bailouts and, unlike people who are in over their head, the government can actually (at least so far...) pay.I could well see something like this here too, just a hint more nefarious.
Could you see something like "sue - get title - get no money from debitor - get bailout"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679825</id>
	<title>The Wells Fargo paradox</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247511540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>replaces the Barbers paradox</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>replaces the Barbers paradox</tokentext>
<sentencetext>replaces the Barbers paradox</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681837</id>
	<title>Re:Their real goal</title>
	<author>gzunk</author>
	<datestamp>1247476260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, they invested in the Large Hadron Collider at CERN? I'm sure it's not an utter failure yet and Wells Fargo might yet achieve their goal of finding the Higgs Boson!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , they invested in the Large Hadron Collider at CERN ?
I 'm sure it 's not an utter failure yet and Wells Fargo might yet achieve their goal of finding the Higgs Boson !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, they invested in the Large Hadron Collider at CERN?
I'm sure it's not an utter failure yet and Wells Fargo might yet achieve their goal of finding the Higgs Boson!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684041</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>MHolmesIV</author>
	<datestamp>1247486700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, for a 30 year mortgage at current interest rates, 1 years payments (if you include PMI and tax payments to an escrow account) would be around 1/10th the cost of the house. I'd be guessing the original poster didn't get the sweetest interest deal either, since it was an "investment" property, and banks tend to consider those higher risks.</p><p>It's still a stretch, but in some areas of the country, if you add vandalism to it, it's at least plausible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , for a 30 year mortgage at current interest rates , 1 years payments ( if you include PMI and tax payments to an escrow account ) would be around 1/10th the cost of the house .
I 'd be guessing the original poster did n't get the sweetest interest deal either , since it was an " investment " property , and banks tend to consider those higher risks.It 's still a stretch , but in some areas of the country , if you add vandalism to it , it 's at least plausible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, for a 30 year mortgage at current interest rates, 1 years payments (if you include PMI and tax payments to an escrow account) would be around 1/10th the cost of the house.
I'd be guessing the original poster didn't get the sweetest interest deal either, since it was an "investment" property, and banks tend to consider those higher risks.It's still a stretch, but in some areas of the country, if you add vandalism to it, it's at least plausible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681767</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680037</id>
	<title>I'm glad</title>
	<author>Presto Vivace</author>
	<datestamp>1247512200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that I am not the flack who will have to explain this to investors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>that I am not the flack who will have to explain this to investors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that I am not the flack who will have to explain this to investors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681823</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>nextekcarl</author>
	<datestamp>1247476200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's very true. Every business I've ever known anyone to work at has had a serious problem with communication. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, even when directly told because the way it was said was misinterpreted. Some of these have been very large companies (American Express) and some have been small companies with a dozen (or less) employees. I think the only ones I've worked for myself that didn't have this problem was because they didn't really need to communicate in anyway because we all worked pretty much independently and didn't need/benefit from cooperation due to the nature of the work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's very true .
Every business I 've ever known anyone to work at has had a serious problem with communication .
The left hand does n't know what the right hand is doing , even when directly told because the way it was said was misinterpreted .
Some of these have been very large companies ( American Express ) and some have been small companies with a dozen ( or less ) employees .
I think the only ones I 've worked for myself that did n't have this problem was because they did n't really need to communicate in anyway because we all worked pretty much independently and did n't need/benefit from cooperation due to the nature of the work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's very true.
Every business I've ever known anyone to work at has had a serious problem with communication.
The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, even when directly told because the way it was said was misinterpreted.
Some of these have been very large companies (American Express) and some have been small companies with a dozen (or less) employees.
I think the only ones I've worked for myself that didn't have this problem was because they didn't really need to communicate in anyway because we all worked pretty much independently and didn't need/benefit from cooperation due to the nature of the work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28685681</id>
	<title>Re:You can Do that?</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1247499660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've got much of my money in Wells Fargo.  If Wells Fargo wins the lawsuit, will that help my bottom line, or hurt it?  Who am I supposed to be rooting for here?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got much of my money in Wells Fargo .
If Wells Fargo wins the lawsuit , will that help my bottom line , or hurt it ?
Who am I supposed to be rooting for here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got much of my money in Wells Fargo.
If Wells Fargo wins the lawsuit, will that help my bottom line, or hurt it?
Who am I supposed to be rooting for here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680309</id>
	<title>Re:seriously?!</title>
	<author>$RANDOMLUSER</author>
	<datestamp>1247513160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or the latest from SCO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or the latest from SCO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or the latest from SCO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680473</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1247513820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It makes perfect sense for the property sales unit and the mortgage unit to be pursuing different agendas.</p></div></blockquote><p>But it makes no sense at all that the manager at a suffciently high level to have authority over both of them isn't making sure that the different agendas don't escalate to the point where they're trying to bash each others' brains in.  That's his <strong>job.</strong></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It makes perfect sense for the property sales unit and the mortgage unit to be pursuing different agendas.But it makes no sense at all that the manager at a suffciently high level to have authority over both of them is n't making sure that the different agendas do n't escalate to the point where they 're trying to bash each others ' brains in .
That 's his job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It makes perfect sense for the property sales unit and the mortgage unit to be pursuing different agendas.But it makes no sense at all that the manager at a suffciently high level to have authority over both of them isn't making sure that the different agendas don't escalate to the point where they're trying to bash each others' brains in.
That's his job.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28699431</id>
	<title>Re:You can Do that?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247586660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Wells Fargo should be renamed "We Will F*** You" (since we're on the subject. That is exactly what they did to me, a hard-working single mom about a year ago when they took me out of a 5.5\% fixed rate mortgage and put me into a 9.75\% ARM, somehow convincing me it would be in my best interest. I only wanted to consolodate some credit card debt and they decided to take advantage of me as they absorbed my car loan and sucked all the equity out of my home and charge extra fees so they could pocket the profits at my expense. I of course am an idiot to have signed into this loan, which all happened in a matter of about 2 wks., in which my head is still spinning. I didn't even go looking for them, they somehow found me..now I'm thoroughly screwed + they won't do a f***in thing to help. So I, too hope they F*** themselves into oblivian!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Wells Fargo should be renamed " We Will F * * * You " ( since we 're on the subject .
That is exactly what they did to me , a hard-working single mom about a year ago when they took me out of a 5.5 \ % fixed rate mortgage and put me into a 9.75 \ % ARM , somehow convincing me it would be in my best interest .
I only wanted to consolodate some credit card debt and they decided to take advantage of me as they absorbed my car loan and sucked all the equity out of my home and charge extra fees so they could pocket the profits at my expense .
I of course am an idiot to have signed into this loan , which all happened in a matter of about 2 wks. , in which my head is still spinning .
I did n't even go looking for them , they somehow found me..now I 'm thoroughly screwed + they wo n't do a f * * * in thing to help .
So I , too hope they F * * * themselves into oblivian ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Wells Fargo should be renamed "We Will F*** You" (since we're on the subject.
That is exactly what they did to me, a hard-working single mom about a year ago when they took me out of a 5.5\% fixed rate mortgage and put me into a 9.75\% ARM, somehow convincing me it would be in my best interest.
I only wanted to consolodate some credit card debt and they decided to take advantage of me as they absorbed my car loan and sucked all the equity out of my home and charge extra fees so they could pocket the profits at my expense.
I of course am an idiot to have signed into this loan, which all happened in a matter of about 2 wks., in which my head is still spinning.
I didn't even go looking for them, they somehow found me..now I'm thoroughly screwed + they won't do a f***in thing to help.
So I, too hope they F*** themselves into oblivian!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682401</id>
	<title>Calling yourself a liar</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1247478660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I RTFA, and it appears that Florida requires that you sue all lien holders. Since they have 80/20 double mortgage, they have to sue themselves.</p></div></blockquote><p>Even so, I doubt very much that Florida law requires them to deny their own allegations; you are never required to contest the points made by someone suing you, and it is especially ridiculous to deny claims that you yourself are making.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I RTFA , and it appears that Florida requires that you sue all lien holders .
Since they have 80/20 double mortgage , they have to sue themselves.Even so , I doubt very much that Florida law requires them to deny their own allegations ; you are never required to contest the points made by someone suing you , and it is especially ridiculous to deny claims that you yourself are making .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I RTFA, and it appears that Florida requires that you sue all lien holders.
Since they have 80/20 double mortgage, they have to sue themselves.Even so, I doubt very much that Florida law requires them to deny their own allegations; you are never required to contest the points made by someone suing you, and it is especially ridiculous to deny claims that you yourself are making.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680387</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>hackingbear</author>
	<datestamp>1247513460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, but that just passes the stupidity to our legal system, according to The Law of Conservation of Stupidity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but that just passes the stupidity to our legal system , according to The Law of Conservation of Stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but that just passes the stupidity to our legal system, according to The Law of Conservation of Stupidity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679433</id>
	<title>You can Do that?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247510460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll See Me In court!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll See Me In court ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll See Me In court!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680745</id>
	<title>Re:Schrodinger's Bank</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1247515080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Message to all other creditors of Wells Fargo: "Sorry, we owe this money to our #1 creditor, Wells Fargo, due to the outcome of this lawsuit.  You can't have any."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Message to all other creditors of Wells Fargo : " Sorry , we owe this money to our # 1 creditor , Wells Fargo , due to the outcome of this lawsuit .
You ca n't have any .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Message to all other creditors of Wells Fargo: "Sorry, we owe this money to our #1 creditor, Wells Fargo, due to the outcome of this lawsuit.
You can't have any.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28683633</id>
	<title>Re:Syndication of the loan...</title>
	<author>Artifakt</author>
	<datestamp>1247484300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Filing may be required, although if so that's not just a result of Florida law, and right now, is only conjectural re. a third party covenant, but disputing the facts as stated in the original claim isn't required. As it stands, if one representative of the company makes a claim and the other disputes it, since both of them can check their information inside the company, and have an obligation to check before making statements, one of them has committed perjury. How will doing that protect the company from a legal challenge?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Filing may be required , although if so that 's not just a result of Florida law , and right now , is only conjectural re .
a third party covenant , but disputing the facts as stated in the original claim is n't required .
As it stands , if one representative of the company makes a claim and the other disputes it , since both of them can check their information inside the company , and have an obligation to check before making statements , one of them has committed perjury .
How will doing that protect the company from a legal challenge ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Filing may be required, although if so that's not just a result of Florida law, and right now, is only conjectural re.
a third party covenant, but disputing the facts as stated in the original claim isn't required.
As it stands, if one representative of the company makes a claim and the other disputes it, since both of them can check their information inside the company, and have an obligation to check before making statements, one of them has committed perjury.
How will doing that protect the company from a legal challenge?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679469</id>
	<title>seriously?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247510520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This sounds like something out of HitchHikers or a Python sketch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds like something out of HitchHikers or a Python sketch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds like something out of HitchHikers or a Python sketch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679457</id>
	<title>Latest news</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1247510520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sales of mattress have started picking up again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sales of mattress have started picking up again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sales of mattress have started picking up again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682075</id>
	<title>Re:Eh</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1247477220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not Wells Fargo we ought to be upset at, it's the legal system that's so borked it requires a company to sue itself. Can we burn the law books yet and just govern ourselves by common sense?</p></div><p>Not a system problem at all.</p><p>How can all these "computer people" not know the phrase "garbage in, garbage out".</p><p>One bank on both sides of a 80/20 is garbage.</p><p>Garbage in, garbage out, therefore the cleanup is inherently going to be crazy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not Wells Fargo we ought to be upset at , it 's the legal system that 's so borked it requires a company to sue itself .
Can we burn the law books yet and just govern ourselves by common sense ? Not a system problem at all.How can all these " computer people " not know the phrase " garbage in , garbage out " .One bank on both sides of a 80/20 is garbage.Garbage in , garbage out , therefore the cleanup is inherently going to be crazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not Wells Fargo we ought to be upset at, it's the legal system that's so borked it requires a company to sue itself.
Can we burn the law books yet and just govern ourselves by common sense?Not a system problem at all.How can all these "computer people" not know the phrase "garbage in, garbage out".One bank on both sides of a 80/20 is garbage.Garbage in, garbage out, therefore the cleanup is inherently going to be crazy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681799</id>
	<title>Re:Stupidity countdown</title>
	<author>Estanislao Martínez</author>
	<datestamp>1247476140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>4) Florida State government: For writing a law that requires a bank to sue itself.</p></div></blockquote><p>I actually don't think that the law requires the bank to sue itself, given that, um, the courts simply don't allow anybody to sue themselves.  A lawsuit is a process to settle a dispute between two parties.  A party can't have a dispute with itself, period, because by definition it has the same interests as itself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>4 ) Florida State government : For writing a law that requires a bank to sue itself.I actually do n't think that the law requires the bank to sue itself , given that , um , the courts simply do n't allow anybody to sue themselves .
A lawsuit is a process to settle a dispute between two parties .
A party ca n't have a dispute with itself , period , because by definition it has the same interests as itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4) Florida State government: For writing a law that requires a bank to sue itself.I actually don't think that the law requires the bank to sue itself, given that, um, the courts simply don't allow anybody to sue themselves.
A lawsuit is a process to settle a dispute between two parties.
A party can't have a dispute with itself, period, because by definition it has the same interests as itself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679813</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28683499</id>
	<title>Total</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247483340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Genius!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Genius !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Genius!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679951</id>
	<title>Who own's first?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247511960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bud: Fargo owns first mortgage<br>
Bud: Fargo owns second  mortgage<br>
Bud: I don't know owns third mortgage<br>
Lou: That's what I want to know who to sue first<br>
Bud: Fargo!<br>
Lou: Fargo owns second?<br>
Bud: Fargo owns first.<br>
Lou: I don't know<br>
Bud: Third base!<br>
<br> <br>
*Apologizes to Bud Abbot and Lou Costello</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bud : Fargo owns first mortgage Bud : Fargo owns second mortgage Bud : I do n't know owns third mortgage Lou : That 's what I want to know who to sue first Bud : Fargo !
Lou : Fargo owns second ?
Bud : Fargo owns first .
Lou : I do n't know Bud : Third base !
* Apologizes to Bud Abbot and Lou Costello</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bud: Fargo owns first mortgage
Bud: Fargo owns second  mortgage
Bud: I don't know owns third mortgage
Lou: That's what I want to know who to sue first
Bud: Fargo!
Lou: Fargo owns second?
Bud: Fargo owns first.
Lou: I don't know
Bud: Third base!
*Apologizes to Bud Abbot and Lou Costello</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680415</id>
	<title>Their real goal</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1247513580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think it's just utter stupidity, you are sorely mistaken. The intent is far more insidious. As one of the investors in the LHC they took a bath when the LHC turned out to be an utter failure. They wondered how they could achieve their goal.</p><p>Then it struck them, and it was a PHB up top who came up with the idea, much to the surprise of the team.  If you create a lawsuit which is utterly idiotic, such as a fortune 100 company suing itself, you are bound to create a singularity.</p><p>That's it folks. They are betting on the stupidity and greed of lawyers being enough to trigger the creation of a sustained artificial singularity.</p><p>The next step is to figure out how to make it profitable, but like the modern American dream, they are going to leave that to the developing Asian countries to figure out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think it 's just utter stupidity , you are sorely mistaken .
The intent is far more insidious .
As one of the investors in the LHC they took a bath when the LHC turned out to be an utter failure .
They wondered how they could achieve their goal.Then it struck them , and it was a PHB up top who came up with the idea , much to the surprise of the team .
If you create a lawsuit which is utterly idiotic , such as a fortune 100 company suing itself , you are bound to create a singularity.That 's it folks .
They are betting on the stupidity and greed of lawyers being enough to trigger the creation of a sustained artificial singularity.The next step is to figure out how to make it profitable , but like the modern American dream , they are going to leave that to the developing Asian countries to figure out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think it's just utter stupidity, you are sorely mistaken.
The intent is far more insidious.
As one of the investors in the LHC they took a bath when the LHC turned out to be an utter failure.
They wondered how they could achieve their goal.Then it struck them, and it was a PHB up top who came up with the idea, much to the surprise of the team.
If you create a lawsuit which is utterly idiotic, such as a fortune 100 company suing itself, you are bound to create a singularity.That's it folks.
They are betting on the stupidity and greed of lawyers being enough to trigger the creation of a sustained artificial singularity.The next step is to figure out how to make it profitable, but like the modern American dream, they are going to leave that to the developing Asian countries to figure out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679793</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1247511420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm currently in the process of purchasing a property owned by Wells Fargo, and I'm also using Wells Fargo for the mortgage.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Who would have thunk a fictitious person could develop schizophrenia!</p></div><p>It's only confusing if you assume that corporations are one monolithic entity.<br>The truth is that they are made up of numerous units, branches, fiefdoms, etc etc etc.<br>It makes perfect sense for the property sales unit and the mortgage unit to be pursuing different agendas.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm currently in the process of purchasing a property owned by Wells Fargo , and I 'm also using Wells Fargo for the mortgage .
... Who would have thunk a fictitious person could develop schizophrenia ! It 's only confusing if you assume that corporations are one monolithic entity.The truth is that they are made up of numerous units , branches , fiefdoms , etc etc etc.It makes perfect sense for the property sales unit and the mortgage unit to be pursuing different agendas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm currently in the process of purchasing a property owned by Wells Fargo, and I'm also using Wells Fargo for the mortgage.
... Who would have thunk a fictitious person could develop schizophrenia!It's only confusing if you assume that corporations are one monolithic entity.The truth is that they are made up of numerous units, branches, fiefdoms, etc etc etc.It makes perfect sense for the property sales unit and the mortgage unit to be pursuing different agendas.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682173</id>
	<title>Re:Not only act of idiocy</title>
	<author>KUHurdler</author>
	<datestamp>1247477640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can vouch for this as well.  I tried to buy a foreclosure house, owned by Wells Fargo.  After 6 months of placing a good offer on the home, and trying to find someone that CAN sell the home, I gave up.  It was a shame, I think they eventually took less than my offer.  I just couldn't wait around any more.

  They obviously didn't care if they lose money or not.    I initially thought they were just overloaded with foreclosures, but I now think they were just incompetent.  I'm sure they can operate for quite a while using government funding.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can vouch for this as well .
I tried to buy a foreclosure house , owned by Wells Fargo .
After 6 months of placing a good offer on the home , and trying to find someone that CAN sell the home , I gave up .
It was a shame , I think they eventually took less than my offer .
I just could n't wait around any more .
They obviously did n't care if they lose money or not .
I initially thought they were just overloaded with foreclosures , but I now think they were just incompetent .
I 'm sure they can operate for quite a while using government funding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can vouch for this as well.
I tried to buy a foreclosure house, owned by Wells Fargo.
After 6 months of placing a good offer on the home, and trying to find someone that CAN sell the home, I gave up.
It was a shame, I think they eventually took less than my offer.
I just couldn't wait around any more.
They obviously didn't care if they lose money or not.
I initially thought they were just overloaded with foreclosures, but I now think they were just incompetent.
I'm sure they can operate for quite a while using government funding.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682219</id>
	<title>Admission?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1247477880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Extreme economic problems require extreme solutions, and Wells Fargo Bank has come up with a good one. They have decided to sue themselves. Wells Fargo holds the first and second mortgages on a condominium that is going into foreclosure. As holder of the first, they are suing all other lien holders, including the holder of the second, which is Wells Fargo. It gets better. The company has hired a lawyer to defend itself against its own lawsuit. The defense lawyer even filed this answer to the complaint, "Defendant admits that it is the owner and holder of a mortgage encumbering the subject real property. All other allegations of the complaint are denied."</p></div> </blockquote><p>Insofar as Wells Fargo (as defendant) is denying its own (as plaintiff) allegations, shouldn't all the other defendants be able to enter in Wells's own denial of those allegations as an admission, by Wells, that the allegations are false and, further, that <i>Wells knows them to be false</i>, justifying both dismissal of the suit <i>and</i> potentially other sanctions against Wells?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Extreme economic problems require extreme solutions , and Wells Fargo Bank has come up with a good one .
They have decided to sue themselves .
Wells Fargo holds the first and second mortgages on a condominium that is going into foreclosure .
As holder of the first , they are suing all other lien holders , including the holder of the second , which is Wells Fargo .
It gets better .
The company has hired a lawyer to defend itself against its own lawsuit .
The defense lawyer even filed this answer to the complaint , " Defendant admits that it is the owner and holder of a mortgage encumbering the subject real property .
All other allegations of the complaint are denied .
" Insofar as Wells Fargo ( as defendant ) is denying its own ( as plaintiff ) allegations , should n't all the other defendants be able to enter in Wells 's own denial of those allegations as an admission , by Wells , that the allegations are false and , further , that Wells knows them to be false , justifying both dismissal of the suit and potentially other sanctions against Wells ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Extreme economic problems require extreme solutions, and Wells Fargo Bank has come up with a good one.
They have decided to sue themselves.
Wells Fargo holds the first and second mortgages on a condominium that is going into foreclosure.
As holder of the first, they are suing all other lien holders, including the holder of the second, which is Wells Fargo.
It gets better.
The company has hired a lawyer to defend itself against its own lawsuit.
The defense lawyer even filed this answer to the complaint, "Defendant admits that it is the owner and holder of a mortgage encumbering the subject real property.
All other allegations of the complaint are denied.
" Insofar as Wells Fargo (as defendant) is denying its own (as plaintiff) allegations, shouldn't all the other defendants be able to enter in Wells's own denial of those allegations as an admission, by Wells, that the allegations are false and, further, that Wells knows them to be false, justifying both dismissal of the suit and potentially other sanctions against Wells?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28685307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28683097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28685659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28688755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28683411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28685425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28686701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28683633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28685681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28695633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28688425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28685783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28688571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28692207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28686949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28685631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28699431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_1727218_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1727218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680807
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1727218.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682975
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1727218.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28688755
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1727218.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682421
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1727218.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28685425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682401
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1727218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679991
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680491
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28699431
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28686949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28683097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28685681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28688571
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1727218.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679833
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1727218.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681837
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1727218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28683633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682455
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1727218.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28683221
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1727218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679779
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1727218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681335
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1727218.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680067
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681119
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682075
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28683411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684183
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1727218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679951
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1727218.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680745
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1727218.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680055
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681767
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28685631
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684777
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684041
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28685659
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682173
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684057
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28692207
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28688425
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28685783
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681929
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681283
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28685307
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679597
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681247
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681729
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28695633
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680231
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679793
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680473
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682245
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680009
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684059
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681089
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680197
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680219
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680527
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681823
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682727
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28686701
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681765
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1727218.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682465
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_1727218.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28679469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28681755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28680309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28684451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_1727218.28682717
</commentlist>
</conversation>
