<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_15_1351204</id>
	<title>Internet Astroturfer Fined $300,000</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1247667900000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced yesterday that Lifestyle Lift, a cosmetic surgery company who posted fake reviews of their services on various websites, <a href="http://www.seattlepi.com/business/1310ap\_us\_online\_product\_reviews.html">will have to pay $300,000 to the state of New York</a>. Cuomo's office says <a href="http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media\_center/2009/july/july14b\_09.html">this is the first US case</a> to specifically target <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing">astroturfing</a> on the internet.
<i>"Internal emails discovered by Attorney General Cuomo's investigation show that Lifestyle Lift employees were given specific instructions to engage in this illegal activity. One e-mail to employees said: 'Friday is going to be a slow day &mdash; I need you to devote the day to doing more postings on the web as a satisfied client.' Another internal email directed a Lifestyle Lift employee to 'Put your wig and skirt on and tell them about the great experience you had.' In addition to posting on various Internet message board services, Lifestyle Lift also registered and created stand-alone Web sites, such as MyFaceliftStory.com, designed to appear as if they were created by independent and satisfied customers of Lifestyle Lift. The sites offered positive narratives about the Lifestyle Lift experience. Some of these sites purported to offer forums for users to add their own comments about Lifestyle Lift. In reality, however, Lifestyle Lift either provided all the 'user comments' themselves, or closely monitored and edited third-party comments to skew the discussion in favor of Lifestyle Lift."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced yesterday that Lifestyle Lift , a cosmetic surgery company who posted fake reviews of their services on various websites , will have to pay $ 300,000 to the state of New York .
Cuomo 's office says this is the first US case to specifically target astroturfing on the internet .
" Internal emails discovered by Attorney General Cuomo 's investigation show that Lifestyle Lift employees were given specific instructions to engage in this illegal activity .
One e-mail to employees said : 'Friday is going to be a slow day    I need you to devote the day to doing more postings on the web as a satisfied client .
' Another internal email directed a Lifestyle Lift employee to 'Put your wig and skirt on and tell them about the great experience you had .
' In addition to posting on various Internet message board services , Lifestyle Lift also registered and created stand-alone Web sites , such as MyFaceliftStory.com , designed to appear as if they were created by independent and satisfied customers of Lifestyle Lift .
The sites offered positive narratives about the Lifestyle Lift experience .
Some of these sites purported to offer forums for users to add their own comments about Lifestyle Lift .
In reality , however , Lifestyle Lift either provided all the 'user comments ' themselves , or closely monitored and edited third-party comments to skew the discussion in favor of Lifestyle Lift .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced yesterday that Lifestyle Lift, a cosmetic surgery company who posted fake reviews of their services on various websites, will have to pay $300,000 to the state of New York.
Cuomo's office says this is the first US case to specifically target astroturfing on the internet.
"Internal emails discovered by Attorney General Cuomo's investigation show that Lifestyle Lift employees were given specific instructions to engage in this illegal activity.
One e-mail to employees said: 'Friday is going to be a slow day — I need you to devote the day to doing more postings on the web as a satisfied client.
' Another internal email directed a Lifestyle Lift employee to 'Put your wig and skirt on and tell them about the great experience you had.
' In addition to posting on various Internet message board services, Lifestyle Lift also registered and created stand-alone Web sites, such as MyFaceliftStory.com, designed to appear as if they were created by independent and satisfied customers of Lifestyle Lift.
The sites offered positive narratives about the Lifestyle Lift experience.
Some of these sites purported to offer forums for users to add their own comments about Lifestyle Lift.
In reality, however, Lifestyle Lift either provided all the 'user comments' themselves, or closely monitored and edited third-party comments to skew the discussion in favor of Lifestyle Lift.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704253</id>
	<title>Below the Radar</title>
	<author>lee1</author>
	<datestamp>1247677080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>These slimeballs just got picked off because they got big enough to get noticed, and they had enough money to make it worthwhile for the government. This will not be likely to give much pause to the small companies and individuals who routinely employ these <a href="http://www.markbernstein.org/Dec0501/JohnstononTinderbox.html" title="markbernstein.org">sleazy tactics</a> [markbernstein.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>These slimeballs just got picked off because they got big enough to get noticed , and they had enough money to make it worthwhile for the government .
This will not be likely to give much pause to the small companies and individuals who routinely employ these sleazy tactics [ markbernstein.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These slimeballs just got picked off because they got big enough to get noticed, and they had enough money to make it worthwhile for the government.
This will not be likely to give much pause to the small companies and individuals who routinely employ these sleazy tactics [markbernstein.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703649</id>
	<title>Individual Responsibility</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1247673720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is not the fine.  The problem is that the individuals who did this can hide under the corporation and not be held responsible.  Why is it that if I did this on my own, I would personally be liable, but if I did so working for a corporation, the corporation is liable?  Can I just do anything I want, so long as I have a shell corporation with a boss who tells me to do it?</p><p>If we held individuals responsible, then individuals would stand-up to the corporations and say no.  But so long as they can clear their conscience by blaming their boss, and on up the chain, these things will happen.  Oh, and punishing the CEOs doesn't fix it either, unless the CEO was really involved.  Everybody seems to want to go to the person at the top.  I want to beat the person at the bottom who actually did it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is not the fine .
The problem is that the individuals who did this can hide under the corporation and not be held responsible .
Why is it that if I did this on my own , I would personally be liable , but if I did so working for a corporation , the corporation is liable ?
Can I just do anything I want , so long as I have a shell corporation with a boss who tells me to do it ? If we held individuals responsible , then individuals would stand-up to the corporations and say no .
But so long as they can clear their conscience by blaming their boss , and on up the chain , these things will happen .
Oh , and punishing the CEOs does n't fix it either , unless the CEO was really involved .
Everybody seems to want to go to the person at the top .
I want to beat the person at the bottom who actually did it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is not the fine.
The problem is that the individuals who did this can hide under the corporation and not be held responsible.
Why is it that if I did this on my own, I would personally be liable, but if I did so working for a corporation, the corporation is liable?
Can I just do anything I want, so long as I have a shell corporation with a boss who tells me to do it?If we held individuals responsible, then individuals would stand-up to the corporations and say no.
But so long as they can clear their conscience by blaming their boss, and on up the chain, these things will happen.
Oh, and punishing the CEOs doesn't fix it either, unless the CEO was really involved.
Everybody seems to want to go to the person at the top.
I want to beat the person at the bottom who actually did it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704311</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shills</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247677320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>McDonalds sells hamburgers.  Not the greatest hamburgers, but they are very convenient.  People who have no real choice often end up at McDonalds.  Although there is nothing really wrong with McDonalds, there isn't a whole lot right about it either.  You might try Burger King and discover that you like McDonald's better.  That much I can believe, but most people who want a better choice than McDonalds will go to a real restaurant.</p><p>So I can understand why you might legitimately dislike Linux.  But most of the people who jump ship from MS in search of a better experience end up with Apple.  A few of them might even go back to MS, but I have yet to see that happen in real life.</p><p>You may be a genuine McDonalds fan.  There really ARE some people who have acquired a test for their food, even though the majority view it as a last resort.  But in the computer industry, a lot of people get paid to express an opinion.  Brand loyalty is a commodity to be bought and sold.  So the pro-MS comments get a fair amount of skepticism, as would a glowing review of McDonald's cuisine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>McDonalds sells hamburgers .
Not the greatest hamburgers , but they are very convenient .
People who have no real choice often end up at McDonalds .
Although there is nothing really wrong with McDonalds , there is n't a whole lot right about it either .
You might try Burger King and discover that you like McDonald 's better .
That much I can believe , but most people who want a better choice than McDonalds will go to a real restaurant.So I can understand why you might legitimately dislike Linux .
But most of the people who jump ship from MS in search of a better experience end up with Apple .
A few of them might even go back to MS , but I have yet to see that happen in real life.You may be a genuine McDonalds fan .
There really ARE some people who have acquired a test for their food , even though the majority view it as a last resort .
But in the computer industry , a lot of people get paid to express an opinion .
Brand loyalty is a commodity to be bought and sold .
So the pro-MS comments get a fair amount of skepticism , as would a glowing review of McDonald 's cuisine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>McDonalds sells hamburgers.
Not the greatest hamburgers, but they are very convenient.
People who have no real choice often end up at McDonalds.
Although there is nothing really wrong with McDonalds, there isn't a whole lot right about it either.
You might try Burger King and discover that you like McDonald's better.
That much I can believe, but most people who want a better choice than McDonalds will go to a real restaurant.So I can understand why you might legitimately dislike Linux.
But most of the people who jump ship from MS in search of a better experience end up with Apple.
A few of them might even go back to MS, but I have yet to see that happen in real life.You may be a genuine McDonalds fan.
There really ARE some people who have acquired a test for their food, even though the majority view it as a last resort.
But in the computer industry, a lot of people get paid to express an opinion.
Brand loyalty is a commodity to be bought and sold.
So the pro-MS comments get a fair amount of skepticism, as would a glowing review of McDonald's cuisine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28708325</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shills</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1247652600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When someone points out how you are a fanboy and wrong, that doesn't make them a Microsoft shill or incorrect.  Most of the pro-microsoft stuff seen on slashdot is true, sure there is some BS, but there not really anymore MS BS than there is GPL/Linux BS spread here.</p><p>Turn off your damn fanboy paranoia for a few moments and realize that while they are fully evil bastards, they are simply better at some things than your precious.  GPL and Linux aren't the end all be all/only solution that can possibly be for everything on the planet, regardless of how much you want it to be so.  Its not going to make you cool even if it were true, you'll still be a dull douche bag following the trend set by someone else<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When someone points out how you are a fanboy and wrong , that does n't make them a Microsoft shill or incorrect .
Most of the pro-microsoft stuff seen on slashdot is true , sure there is some BS , but there not really anymore MS BS than there is GPL/Linux BS spread here.Turn off your damn fanboy paranoia for a few moments and realize that while they are fully evil bastards , they are simply better at some things than your precious .
GPL and Linux are n't the end all be all/only solution that can possibly be for everything on the planet , regardless of how much you want it to be so .
Its not going to make you cool even if it were true , you 'll still be a dull douche bag following the trend set by someone else : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When someone points out how you are a fanboy and wrong, that doesn't make them a Microsoft shill or incorrect.
Most of the pro-microsoft stuff seen on slashdot is true, sure there is some BS, but there not really anymore MS BS than there is GPL/Linux BS spread here.Turn off your damn fanboy paranoia for a few moments and realize that while they are fully evil bastards, they are simply better at some things than your precious.
GPL and Linux aren't the end all be all/only solution that can possibly be for everything on the planet, regardless of how much you want it to be so.
Its not going to make you cool even if it were true, you'll still be a dull douche bag following the trend set by someone else :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703899</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shills</title>
	<author>wjousts</author>
	<datestamp>1247675220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hopefully they will look into tin-foil hat shills too!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully they will look into tin-foil hat shills too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully they will look into tin-foil hat shills too!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703807</id>
	<title>They have operations in New York</title>
	<author>sirwired</author>
	<datestamp>1247674620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a corporation, if you have facilities in a certain state, you are expected to abide by the laws of that state.  New York gets the money because the AG filed the suit and did all the work.  I suppose the FTC could join in the fun if they wanted to... but it looks like there is no need here.</p><p>SirWired</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a corporation , if you have facilities in a certain state , you are expected to abide by the laws of that state .
New York gets the money because the AG filed the suit and did all the work .
I suppose the FTC could join in the fun if they wanted to... but it looks like there is no need here.SirWired</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a corporation, if you have facilities in a certain state, you are expected to abide by the laws of that state.
New York gets the money because the AG filed the suit and did all the work.
I suppose the FTC could join in the fun if they wanted to... but it looks like there is no need here.SirWired</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706197</id>
	<title>Re:Individual Responsibility</title>
	<author>CastrTroy</author>
	<datestamp>1247685540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good point.  However no everybody is in a good enough financial position to be able to risk getting fired. Sure it would probably be classified as wrongful dismissal, but then, the employee would have an expensive legal battle ahead of them to try and prove it.  The employee shouldn't have to keep in check with all the laws either.  How is the employee supposed to know it's actually illegal. Sure it sounds devious, but a lot of stuff in the current business world is devious, yet not illegal.  The employee has to have some assurance that they won't be arrested because they did something their employer told them to do was illegal.  The employee should be able to assume that the employer isn't telling them to do illegal things.  Do you charge the guy who drives the truck when illegal dumping is done, or do you fine the company who told him to do it?  Hard decision in some cases, but you can't expect the employee to go trying to identify the contents of the unmarked barrels and try to figure out if dumping the stuff is legal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good point .
However no everybody is in a good enough financial position to be able to risk getting fired .
Sure it would probably be classified as wrongful dismissal , but then , the employee would have an expensive legal battle ahead of them to try and prove it .
The employee should n't have to keep in check with all the laws either .
How is the employee supposed to know it 's actually illegal .
Sure it sounds devious , but a lot of stuff in the current business world is devious , yet not illegal .
The employee has to have some assurance that they wo n't be arrested because they did something their employer told them to do was illegal .
The employee should be able to assume that the employer is n't telling them to do illegal things .
Do you charge the guy who drives the truck when illegal dumping is done , or do you fine the company who told him to do it ?
Hard decision in some cases , but you ca n't expect the employee to go trying to identify the contents of the unmarked barrels and try to figure out if dumping the stuff is legal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good point.
However no everybody is in a good enough financial position to be able to risk getting fired.
Sure it would probably be classified as wrongful dismissal, but then, the employee would have an expensive legal battle ahead of them to try and prove it.
The employee shouldn't have to keep in check with all the laws either.
How is the employee supposed to know it's actually illegal.
Sure it sounds devious, but a lot of stuff in the current business world is devious, yet not illegal.
The employee has to have some assurance that they won't be arrested because they did something their employer told them to do was illegal.
The employee should be able to assume that the employer isn't telling them to do illegal things.
Do you charge the guy who drives the truck when illegal dumping is done, or do you fine the company who told him to do it?
Hard decision in some cases, but you can't expect the employee to go trying to identify the contents of the unmarked barrels and try to figure out if dumping the stuff is legal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28710105</id>
	<title>Good Start</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1247660820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now if we can just fine race car drivers and celebrities for "endorsing" products that they don't actually use.  Then we can move on to unfounded claims and go after Billy Mays' estate for all the junk he's hawked over the years.  Then we can get the Oreck guy and the 4-hour Energy guy.  Finally, the Sham-wow guy...err, wait, he has enough legal troubles it seems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if we can just fine race car drivers and celebrities for " endorsing " products that they do n't actually use .
Then we can move on to unfounded claims and go after Billy Mays ' estate for all the junk he 's hawked over the years .
Then we can get the Oreck guy and the 4-hour Energy guy .
Finally , the Sham-wow guy...err , wait , he has enough legal troubles it seems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if we can just fine race car drivers and celebrities for "endorsing" products that they don't actually use.
Then we can move on to unfounded claims and go after Billy Mays' estate for all the junk he's hawked over the years.
Then we can get the Oreck guy and the 4-hour Energy guy.
Finally, the Sham-wow guy...err, wait, he has enough legal troubles it seems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704573</id>
	<title>The marketing is very effective. Is it honest?</title>
	<author>Futurepower(R)</author>
	<datestamp>1247678760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"The overall problem is that the message still hasn't gotten out to people."</i>

<br> <br>A more immediate problem is that this story on Slashdot is likely to bring <a href="http://www.lifestylelift.com/" title="lifestylelift.com">Lifestyle Lift</a> [lifestylelift.com] more customers. Look at the before and after photos.

<br> <br> <i>"If you know that, why would you believe anything on the internet with testimonials, blogs, Google ad links, Myspace links and the like?"</i>

<br> <br>In the particular case of Lifestyle Lift, it is difficult to detect what is actually happening. Are the before and after photos completely dishonest? I don't know.

<br> <br>Infomercials often take advantage of the weaknesses of people and there is an intense search for methods of intensifying the attack on those weaknesses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The overall problem is that the message still has n't gotten out to people .
" A more immediate problem is that this story on Slashdot is likely to bring Lifestyle Lift [ lifestylelift.com ] more customers .
Look at the before and after photos .
" If you know that , why would you believe anything on the internet with testimonials , blogs , Google ad links , Myspace links and the like ?
" In the particular case of Lifestyle Lift , it is difficult to detect what is actually happening .
Are the before and after photos completely dishonest ?
I do n't know .
Infomercials often take advantage of the weaknesses of people and there is an intense search for methods of intensifying the attack on those weaknesses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The overall problem is that the message still hasn't gotten out to people.
"

 A more immediate problem is that this story on Slashdot is likely to bring Lifestyle Lift [lifestylelift.com] more customers.
Look at the before and after photos.
"If you know that, why would you believe anything on the internet with testimonials, blogs, Google ad links, Myspace links and the like?
"

 In the particular case of Lifestyle Lift, it is difficult to detect what is actually happening.
Are the before and after photos completely dishonest?
I don't know.
Infomercials often take advantage of the weaknesses of people and there is an intense search for methods of intensifying the attack on those weaknesses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703651</id>
	<title>Re:legal</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1247673780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><ul>
<li>How is this illegal?</li></ul><p>

It is Fraud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this illegal ?
It is Fraud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
How is this illegal?
It is Fraud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703909</id>
	<title>The lesson they've failed to learn from history...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247675280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The lesson they've failed to learn from mistakes of historical greats like Richard Nixon and the Plumbers - destroy the (e-mails.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The lesson they 've failed to learn from mistakes of historical greats like Richard Nixon and the Plumbers - destroy the ( e-mails .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lesson they've failed to learn from mistakes of historical greats like Richard Nixon and the Plumbers - destroy the (e-mails.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704609</id>
	<title>Re:What I really want to know</title>
	<author>Hyppy</author>
	<datestamp>1247678880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd rather have Microsoft shills than the horde of Cowards.  Team Microsoft usually at least contributes something to the discussion, even if it's misinformed at times, as opposed to AC wharrgarbl.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather have Microsoft shills than the horde of Cowards .
Team Microsoft usually at least contributes something to the discussion , even if it 's misinformed at times , as opposed to AC wharrgarbl .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather have Microsoft shills than the horde of Cowards.
Team Microsoft usually at least contributes something to the discussion, even if it's misinformed at times, as opposed to AC wharrgarbl.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703619</id>
	<title>Re:legal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247673540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False\_advertising" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">False (or deceptive) Advertising</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>False ( or deceptive ) Advertising [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>False (or deceptive) Advertising [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704149</id>
	<title>Re:Billy Mays Here</title>
	<author>SupremoMan</author>
	<datestamp>1247676540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot your ghost-voice tags.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot your ghost-voice tags .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot your ghost-voice tags.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703517</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1247672760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your recap leaves out the news and then claims it is not news.  The news is not that they lied, but that they were caught and prosecuted.  Good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your recap leaves out the news and then claims it is not news .
The news is not that they lied , but that they were caught and prosecuted .
Good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your recap leaves out the news and then claims it is not news.
The news is not that they lied, but that they were caught and prosecuted.
Good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706803</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shills</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1247688360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting and subtle way to bash MS, nice job.</p><p>However, your burger theory doesn't make sense.  Nobody "ends up" at McDs that doesn't want to... they can have a burger at home, or not have a burger at all.  Also, you seem to perclude that McDs can't make good burgers.  I actually like them quite a bit.  I also like the burgers at Wendys, BK, Outback and my local steakhouse, in addition to local pubs.  They're all good; just different.  I doubt McDs though is the "last resort," since you can throw a stone and find another burger place.</p><p>Back to OSes, people going from Windows to Mac is a more recent thing, brought on by the sucess of iPod and more recently, iPhone.  When I jumped to Linux, it was at a time when the iPod was just coming out, so this jump didn't happen.  People (techies, the one that used to frequent this site) were jumping to Linux.  Apple was often also rarely mentioned, especially outside any Apple category.  So the jumping done (of which there was little) wasn't to Apple then, it was to Linux.</p><p>So while I know elitists like to bash anything popular, the fact is that MS does make good software, McDs does make good food, and Dunkin Donuts does make good coffee... thats they they're still in business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting and subtle way to bash MS , nice job.However , your burger theory does n't make sense .
Nobody " ends up " at McDs that does n't want to... they can have a burger at home , or not have a burger at all .
Also , you seem to perclude that McDs ca n't make good burgers .
I actually like them quite a bit .
I also like the burgers at Wendys , BK , Outback and my local steakhouse , in addition to local pubs .
They 're all good ; just different .
I doubt McDs though is the " last resort , " since you can throw a stone and find another burger place.Back to OSes , people going from Windows to Mac is a more recent thing , brought on by the sucess of iPod and more recently , iPhone .
When I jumped to Linux , it was at a time when the iPod was just coming out , so this jump did n't happen .
People ( techies , the one that used to frequent this site ) were jumping to Linux .
Apple was often also rarely mentioned , especially outside any Apple category .
So the jumping done ( of which there was little ) was n't to Apple then , it was to Linux.So while I know elitists like to bash anything popular , the fact is that MS does make good software , McDs does make good food , and Dunkin Donuts does make good coffee... thats they they 're still in business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting and subtle way to bash MS, nice job.However, your burger theory doesn't make sense.
Nobody "ends up" at McDs that doesn't want to... they can have a burger at home, or not have a burger at all.
Also, you seem to perclude that McDs can't make good burgers.
I actually like them quite a bit.
I also like the burgers at Wendys, BK, Outback and my local steakhouse, in addition to local pubs.
They're all good; just different.
I doubt McDs though is the "last resort," since you can throw a stone and find another burger place.Back to OSes, people going from Windows to Mac is a more recent thing, brought on by the sucess of iPod and more recently, iPhone.
When I jumped to Linux, it was at a time when the iPod was just coming out, so this jump didn't happen.
People (techies, the one that used to frequent this site) were jumping to Linux.
Apple was often also rarely mentioned, especially outside any Apple category.
So the jumping done (of which there was little) wasn't to Apple then, it was to Linux.So while I know elitists like to bash anything popular, the fact is that MS does make good software, McDs does make good food, and Dunkin Donuts does make good coffee... thats they they're still in business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706999</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shills</title>
	<author>Psyborgue</author>
	<datestamp>1247689200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Meh.  It's an aquired taste.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh .
It 's an aquired taste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meh.
It's an aquired taste.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703553</id>
	<title>Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?</title>
	<author>Abreu</author>
	<datestamp>1247673120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In order to not be fined $300,000usd, instead of posting glowing reviews of my product, I will start posting negative reviews of my competitor's product and will ask my sales force to spread FUD about them...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>What?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to not be fined $ 300,000usd , instead of posting glowing reviews of my product , I will start posting negative reviews of my competitor 's product and will ask my sales force to spread FUD about them... ...What ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to not be fined $300,000usd, instead of posting glowing reviews of my product, I will start posting negative reviews of my competitor's product and will ask my sales force to spread FUD about them... ...What?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28708065</id>
	<title>Re:Individual Responsibility</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1247651100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>However, many corporations would have a field day with the ability to ask employees to do illicit activities without any threat of it falling back on the company itself</i></p><p>Isn't that what conspiracy laws are for?  Punish the criminal, and the person who pays them to be a criminal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , many corporations would have a field day with the ability to ask employees to do illicit activities without any threat of it falling back on the company itselfIs n't that what conspiracy laws are for ?
Punish the criminal , and the person who pays them to be a criminal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, many corporations would have a field day with the ability to ask employees to do illicit activities without any threat of it falling back on the company itselfIsn't that what conspiracy laws are for?
Punish the criminal, and the person who pays them to be a criminal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28707791</id>
	<title>Re:Individual Responsibility</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1247649840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The individuals stood little to nothing to gain.</i> <br> <br>Unless they owned any stock or feared they'd get fired if they told their boss "no, that's illegal."  Then they gain employment by doing it, or gain stock value.<br> <br> <i>Could you make a dummy corporation with a boss and do the same thing to "protect" yourself? Sure thing, but the $300,000 fine is going to come to your boss and dummy corporation (ie: you) so what would be the point?</i> <br> <br>For one, that shouldn't work (though it does in practice).  If you own a share of stock in the company you work for, you are both an employee and an owner and have the means to gain directly for such actions you might take.<br> <br>People seem to forget what companies are.  They were never intended to allow corporations to not follow the law.  The corporations should be held to a more strict version of the law because they are not people and have no rights.  They are a piece of paper that allows continuity and shielding for investors who have no input into the daily operations.  Any investor with input into the operations can be held personally responsible.  The continuity was to allow Bob to sign a contract with Joan Acme Anvils and when Joan dies in a horrible road runner related accident, Jeff that takes her place is required by law to honor the agreement as if he signed it himself.  If you signed an agreement with Joan on her promise that as long as she worked for Acme she would make it happen, then that wouldn't be worth nearly the same amount.  And before incorporation, that's all you had (though in practice it worked better than that, but it was still how it explicitly was).  And about the same time those problems were popping up, corporations grew so large as to have investors that had no interest in daily operations, but didn't want to be held liable for things they didn't and couldn't know.  The governments wanted increased growth, so they passed laws to protect investors so that more people would fund corporations.<br> <br>There was never an intention that the employees would be shielded for direct illegal actions.   The law is not written that way either.  But the practice in prosecuting is such that they have immunity unless someone with clout lost money (see Enron).<br> <br> <i>Had they been told to go murder someone, then clearly the individuals would be held responsible as well, not just the corporate entity.</i> <br> <br>Not true.  Multiple corporations have had people decide to take actions that result in deaths and have not been held responsible.  When you kill Bob, you go to jail.  When you kill some number of unknown people around the globe, you get a raise.  Drug companies have hidden trials they are required by law to disclose, resulting in higher use because it is presumed safe based on lies, resulting in deaths.  Ford violated law to fail to disclose Pinto problems which they expected would result in deaths.  It happens all the time.  And no one from those companies went to jail.  Sure, if they hired a hit on a specific person and documented it well, someone (or more than one someone) would go to jail.  But if they are simply negligent (meaning they expect to kill, but can't guarantee who), then they just get a fine less than the lost profits if they weren't negligent (except for Ford who had the "we know this to be the case, but jurors are idiots that will not award enough to make murder unprofitable" memo that was exposed in court).<br> <br>And the real problem is that a corporation breaks laws, bad ones, felonies, and isn't punished like a person.  Kill someone and get a fine?  That's like an indulgence, and leads to the same problems that the Church had with granting them.  A person can go to ail, but never a corporation.  So they end up, under current laws and practice, to have all the rights and priveledges of a person, with none of the responsibilities.  That was never the intention.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The individuals stood little to nothing to gain .
Unless they owned any stock or feared they 'd get fired if they told their boss " no , that 's illegal .
" Then they gain employment by doing it , or gain stock value .
Could you make a dummy corporation with a boss and do the same thing to " protect " yourself ?
Sure thing , but the $ 300,000 fine is going to come to your boss and dummy corporation ( ie : you ) so what would be the point ?
For one , that should n't work ( though it does in practice ) .
If you own a share of stock in the company you work for , you are both an employee and an owner and have the means to gain directly for such actions you might take .
People seem to forget what companies are .
They were never intended to allow corporations to not follow the law .
The corporations should be held to a more strict version of the law because they are not people and have no rights .
They are a piece of paper that allows continuity and shielding for investors who have no input into the daily operations .
Any investor with input into the operations can be held personally responsible .
The continuity was to allow Bob to sign a contract with Joan Acme Anvils and when Joan dies in a horrible road runner related accident , Jeff that takes her place is required by law to honor the agreement as if he signed it himself .
If you signed an agreement with Joan on her promise that as long as she worked for Acme she would make it happen , then that would n't be worth nearly the same amount .
And before incorporation , that 's all you had ( though in practice it worked better than that , but it was still how it explicitly was ) .
And about the same time those problems were popping up , corporations grew so large as to have investors that had no interest in daily operations , but did n't want to be held liable for things they did n't and could n't know .
The governments wanted increased growth , so they passed laws to protect investors so that more people would fund corporations .
There was never an intention that the employees would be shielded for direct illegal actions .
The law is not written that way either .
But the practice in prosecuting is such that they have immunity unless someone with clout lost money ( see Enron ) .
Had they been told to go murder someone , then clearly the individuals would be held responsible as well , not just the corporate entity .
Not true .
Multiple corporations have had people decide to take actions that result in deaths and have not been held responsible .
When you kill Bob , you go to jail .
When you kill some number of unknown people around the globe , you get a raise .
Drug companies have hidden trials they are required by law to disclose , resulting in higher use because it is presumed safe based on lies , resulting in deaths .
Ford violated law to fail to disclose Pinto problems which they expected would result in deaths .
It happens all the time .
And no one from those companies went to jail .
Sure , if they hired a hit on a specific person and documented it well , someone ( or more than one someone ) would go to jail .
But if they are simply negligent ( meaning they expect to kill , but ca n't guarantee who ) , then they just get a fine less than the lost profits if they were n't negligent ( except for Ford who had the " we know this to be the case , but jurors are idiots that will not award enough to make murder unprofitable " memo that was exposed in court ) .
And the real problem is that a corporation breaks laws , bad ones , felonies , and is n't punished like a person .
Kill someone and get a fine ?
That 's like an indulgence , and leads to the same problems that the Church had with granting them .
A person can go to ail , but never a corporation .
So they end up , under current laws and practice , to have all the rights and priveledges of a person , with none of the responsibilities .
That was never the intention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The individuals stood little to nothing to gain.
Unless they owned any stock or feared they'd get fired if they told their boss "no, that's illegal.
"  Then they gain employment by doing it, or gain stock value.
Could you make a dummy corporation with a boss and do the same thing to "protect" yourself?
Sure thing, but the $300,000 fine is going to come to your boss and dummy corporation (ie: you) so what would be the point?
For one, that shouldn't work (though it does in practice).
If you own a share of stock in the company you work for, you are both an employee and an owner and have the means to gain directly for such actions you might take.
People seem to forget what companies are.
They were never intended to allow corporations to not follow the law.
The corporations should be held to a more strict version of the law because they are not people and have no rights.
They are a piece of paper that allows continuity and shielding for investors who have no input into the daily operations.
Any investor with input into the operations can be held personally responsible.
The continuity was to allow Bob to sign a contract with Joan Acme Anvils and when Joan dies in a horrible road runner related accident, Jeff that takes her place is required by law to honor the agreement as if he signed it himself.
If you signed an agreement with Joan on her promise that as long as she worked for Acme she would make it happen, then that wouldn't be worth nearly the same amount.
And before incorporation, that's all you had (though in practice it worked better than that, but it was still how it explicitly was).
And about the same time those problems were popping up, corporations grew so large as to have investors that had no interest in daily operations, but didn't want to be held liable for things they didn't and couldn't know.
The governments wanted increased growth, so they passed laws to protect investors so that more people would fund corporations.
There was never an intention that the employees would be shielded for direct illegal actions.
The law is not written that way either.
But the practice in prosecuting is such that they have immunity unless someone with clout lost money (see Enron).
Had they been told to go murder someone, then clearly the individuals would be held responsible as well, not just the corporate entity.
Not true.
Multiple corporations have had people decide to take actions that result in deaths and have not been held responsible.
When you kill Bob, you go to jail.
When you kill some number of unknown people around the globe, you get a raise.
Drug companies have hidden trials they are required by law to disclose, resulting in higher use because it is presumed safe based on lies, resulting in deaths.
Ford violated law to fail to disclose Pinto problems which they expected would result in deaths.
It happens all the time.
And no one from those companies went to jail.
Sure, if they hired a hit on a specific person and documented it well, someone (or more than one someone) would go to jail.
But if they are simply negligent (meaning they expect to kill, but can't guarantee who), then they just get a fine less than the lost profits if they weren't negligent (except for Ford who had the "we know this to be the case, but jurors are idiots that will not award enough to make murder unprofitable" memo that was exposed in court).
And the real problem is that a corporation breaks laws, bad ones, felonies, and isn't punished like a person.
Kill someone and get a fine?
That's like an indulgence, and leads to the same problems that the Church had with granting them.
A person can go to ail, but never a corporation.
So they end up, under current laws and practice, to have all the rights and priveledges of a person, with none of the responsibilities.
That was never the intention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706719</id>
	<title>Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247688000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..and world peace.</p><p>Oh, and a Pony!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..and world peace.Oh , and a Pony !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..and world peace.Oh, and a Pony!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28712119</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shills</title>
	<author>tonycheese</author>
	<datestamp>1247675040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am on slashdot about as much as the next person, and I'm always reading the comments. I have to say, I haven't noticed any sort of positive bias towards Microsoft recently. In fact, after reading slashdot for a few years seeing any comments that are anti-microsoft just gets to be sickening and old. Just like any comment that has the word "ftp" in it when discussing browser neutrality automatically gets modded +5 insightful, any comment saying anything bad about microsoft or its products gets modded +5 insightful, even when it has nothing to do with the topic.<br>I have not seen any sort of "dearth of people extolling products competing with Microsoft." I still see the same old posts whining about Microsoft at every opportunity and automatically getting modded up to infinity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am on slashdot about as much as the next person , and I 'm always reading the comments .
I have to say , I have n't noticed any sort of positive bias towards Microsoft recently .
In fact , after reading slashdot for a few years seeing any comments that are anti-microsoft just gets to be sickening and old .
Just like any comment that has the word " ftp " in it when discussing browser neutrality automatically gets modded + 5 insightful , any comment saying anything bad about microsoft or its products gets modded + 5 insightful , even when it has nothing to do with the topic.I have not seen any sort of " dearth of people extolling products competing with Microsoft .
" I still see the same old posts whining about Microsoft at every opportunity and automatically getting modded up to infinity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am on slashdot about as much as the next person, and I'm always reading the comments.
I have to say, I haven't noticed any sort of positive bias towards Microsoft recently.
In fact, after reading slashdot for a few years seeing any comments that are anti-microsoft just gets to be sickening and old.
Just like any comment that has the word "ftp" in it when discussing browser neutrality automatically gets modded +5 insightful, any comment saying anything bad about microsoft or its products gets modded +5 insightful, even when it has nothing to do with the topic.I have not seen any sort of "dearth of people extolling products competing with Microsoft.
" I still see the same old posts whining about Microsoft at every opportunity and automatically getting modded up to infinity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28714507</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shills</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247744280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mcdonalds sells food? I thought it was just a chemical distributor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mcdonalds sells food ?
I thought it was just a chemical distributor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mcdonalds sells food?
I thought it was just a chemical distributor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704193</id>
	<title>Why New York?</title>
	<author>Doug52392</author>
	<datestamp>1247676780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't understand why a company which is not based in New York lied on the Internet, and was fined by the "State of New York". They have one location in Syracuse, NY, but they have locations all over the United States. Could every state in the United States fine them for $300,000?</p><p>And, of course, we can't forget Andrew Cuomo's lengthy track record when it comes to tech issues, specifically Usenet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why a company which is not based in New York lied on the Internet , and was fined by the " State of New York " .
They have one location in Syracuse , NY , but they have locations all over the United States .
Could every state in the United States fine them for $ 300,000 ? And , of course , we ca n't forget Andrew Cuomo 's lengthy track record when it comes to tech issues , specifically Usenet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why a company which is not based in New York lied on the Internet, and was fined by the "State of New York".
They have one location in Syracuse, NY, but they have locations all over the United States.
Could every state in the United States fine them for $300,000?And, of course, we can't forget Andrew Cuomo's lengthy track record when it comes to tech issues, specifically Usenet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705173</id>
	<title>independent and satisfied customers</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1247681340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What independent and satisfied customers of any (one time use) product or service go out of their way to create a fan page?  Sure, they exist for Toys, Games, Food, but Plastic Surgery?  A site like that is fake on its face (pun intended, but no less accurate).</htmltext>
<tokenext>What independent and satisfied customers of any ( one time use ) product or service go out of their way to create a fan page ?
Sure , they exist for Toys , Games , Food , but Plastic Surgery ?
A site like that is fake on its face ( pun intended , but no less accurate ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What independent and satisfied customers of any (one time use) product or service go out of their way to create a fan page?
Sure, they exist for Toys, Games, Food, but Plastic Surgery?
A site like that is fake on its face (pun intended, but no less accurate).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28709517</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shills</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1247657820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that Microsoft, having been caught red-handed astroturfing before, has pissed in the pool.  ANYONE who posts a positive review of MS is going to be suspect, honest or not.  I have the same problem with people supporting China online - the Chinese government pays people 50 cents per message to dispute contrary opinions and post positive thoughts about China - thus making people who honestly support China appear like fakes.  Sad but true.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that Microsoft , having been caught red-handed astroturfing before , has pissed in the pool .
ANYONE who posts a positive review of MS is going to be suspect , honest or not .
I have the same problem with people supporting China online - the Chinese government pays people 50 cents per message to dispute contrary opinions and post positive thoughts about China - thus making people who honestly support China appear like fakes .
Sad but true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that Microsoft, having been caught red-handed astroturfing before, has pissed in the pool.
ANYONE who posts a positive review of MS is going to be suspect, honest or not.
I have the same problem with people supporting China online - the Chinese government pays people 50 cents per message to dispute contrary opinions and post positive thoughts about China - thus making people who honestly support China appear like fakes.
Sad but true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704333</id>
	<title>Re:Individual Responsibility</title>
	<author>RobBebop</author>
	<datestamp>1247677440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<p>You're correct.... as long as there are there are no negative circumstances (or even a perception of negative circumstances) to doing immoral or unethical acts people will do them.

</p><p>We fight pretty hard when there are things we don't think should be considered immoral or unethical (such as jail time for smoking marijuana), but I think what's lacking is a fight to make the negative circumstances of truly immoral and unethical acts more visible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're correct.... as long as there are there are no negative circumstances ( or even a perception of negative circumstances ) to doing immoral or unethical acts people will do them .
We fight pretty hard when there are things we do n't think should be considered immoral or unethical ( such as jail time for smoking marijuana ) , but I think what 's lacking is a fight to make the negative circumstances of truly immoral and unethical acts more visible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
You're correct.... as long as there are there are no negative circumstances (or even a perception of negative circumstances) to doing immoral or unethical acts people will do them.
We fight pretty hard when there are things we don't think should be considered immoral or unethical (such as jail time for smoking marijuana), but I think what's lacking is a fight to make the negative circumstances of truly immoral and unethical acts more visible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703369</id>
	<title>What I really want to know</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1247671980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I really want to know is this:  does this "anti-astroturfing" law apply to "Team Windows"?  If so, watch out Softies, Cuomo's got your number....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I really want to know is this : does this " anti-astroturfing " law apply to " Team Windows " ?
If so , watch out Softies , Cuomo 's got your number... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I really want to know is this:  does this "anti-astroturfing" law apply to "Team Windows"?
If so, watch out Softies, Cuomo's got your number....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703995</id>
	<title>Excuse me, but what is wrong with this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247675820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, they are lying.  Everybody lies.  All advertising is lying in one form or another.  Do believe that went some celebrity appears on TV for a product that they really use it?  Or know anything about it other than what the teleprompter is telling them to say?</p><p>Yes, this company sounds like they were using the "power of the Internet" a little more forcefully than others are today, but exactly what law did they break?  False advertising?  I doubt it.  Certainly no more false than Wilford Brimley talking about Liberty Medical products as if he was at all familiar with the company before they started paying him.</p><p>No, this isn't a good start.  This is not "making the Internet safer."  If you believe testimonials on the Internet you are a fool, because all of them are designed to elicit behavior - yours.  Every single review someone takes the time to write is either telling you how great something is or how bad.  Either way, someone was so motivated as to write the review to "help" others to make the "right" decision.  I wouldn't trust any of them, especially when it is not tied to anyone's real identity.  How many people are out there putting up fake reviews, positive or negative, because they are paid to do so?  How many people are putting up fake reviews because they have some other motive?  For all you know, the person doing it could just hate the founder of the company because he beat them up in 3rd grade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , they are lying .
Everybody lies .
All advertising is lying in one form or another .
Do believe that went some celebrity appears on TV for a product that they really use it ?
Or know anything about it other than what the teleprompter is telling them to say ? Yes , this company sounds like they were using the " power of the Internet " a little more forcefully than others are today , but exactly what law did they break ?
False advertising ?
I doubt it .
Certainly no more false than Wilford Brimley talking about Liberty Medical products as if he was at all familiar with the company before they started paying him.No , this is n't a good start .
This is not " making the Internet safer .
" If you believe testimonials on the Internet you are a fool , because all of them are designed to elicit behavior - yours .
Every single review someone takes the time to write is either telling you how great something is or how bad .
Either way , someone was so motivated as to write the review to " help " others to make the " right " decision .
I would n't trust any of them , especially when it is not tied to anyone 's real identity .
How many people are out there putting up fake reviews , positive or negative , because they are paid to do so ?
How many people are putting up fake reviews because they have some other motive ?
For all you know , the person doing it could just hate the founder of the company because he beat them up in 3rd grade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, they are lying.
Everybody lies.
All advertising is lying in one form or another.
Do believe that went some celebrity appears on TV for a product that they really use it?
Or know anything about it other than what the teleprompter is telling them to say?Yes, this company sounds like they were using the "power of the Internet" a little more forcefully than others are today, but exactly what law did they break?
False advertising?
I doubt it.
Certainly no more false than Wilford Brimley talking about Liberty Medical products as if he was at all familiar with the company before they started paying him.No, this isn't a good start.
This is not "making the Internet safer.
"  If you believe testimonials on the Internet you are a fool, because all of them are designed to elicit behavior - yours.
Every single review someone takes the time to write is either telling you how great something is or how bad.
Either way, someone was so motivated as to write the review to "help" others to make the "right" decision.
I wouldn't trust any of them, especially when it is not tied to anyone's real identity.
How many people are out there putting up fake reviews, positive or negative, because they are paid to do so?
How many people are putting up fake reviews because they have some other motive?
For all you know, the person doing it could just hate the founder of the company because he beat them up in 3rd grade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705523</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>CorporateSuit</author>
	<datestamp>1247682600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I had always known that people were planting fake reviews on forums and thought the only defense be cautious. So hearing that this is actually illegal is big news in my opinion.</p></div><p>Such a law is easily bypassed.  All they have to do now is to buy some icecream bars with their names on a sticker on the wrapper, give it to 10 year old kids, and tell them to write down what they think of this flavor of icecream.<br> <br>
"Oracle is delicious!  When my mom goes to the store, I want her to buy me more Oracle!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had always known that people were planting fake reviews on forums and thought the only defense be cautious .
So hearing that this is actually illegal is big news in my opinion.Such a law is easily bypassed .
All they have to do now is to buy some icecream bars with their names on a sticker on the wrapper , give it to 10 year old kids , and tell them to write down what they think of this flavor of icecream .
" Oracle is delicious !
When my mom goes to the store , I want her to buy me more Oracle !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had always known that people were planting fake reviews on forums and thought the only defense be cautious.
So hearing that this is actually illegal is big news in my opinion.Such a law is easily bypassed.
All they have to do now is to buy some icecream bars with their names on a sticker on the wrapper, give it to 10 year old kids, and tell them to write down what they think of this flavor of icecream.
"Oracle is delicious!
When my mom goes to the store, I want her to buy me more Oracle!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28708673</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shills</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1247654220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>What is striking is the sheer amount of people that has a positive bias towards Microsoft that has entered this forum these last years.</i>
</p><p>You must be reading a different Slashdot to me.  The anti-Microsoft sentiment here is as strong now as it's always been - and I've been reading Slashdot for a \_long\_ time.
</p><p>Indeed, if anything, the blind anti-Microsoft rage has significantly increased while the genuine arguments have decreased.  Exhibit A: Vista's system requirements.  Exhibit B: pretty much anything to do with DRM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is striking is the sheer amount of people that has a positive bias towards Microsoft that has entered this forum these last years .
You must be reading a different Slashdot to me .
The anti-Microsoft sentiment here is as strong now as it 's always been - and I 've been reading Slashdot for a \ _long \ _ time .
Indeed , if anything , the blind anti-Microsoft rage has significantly increased while the genuine arguments have decreased .
Exhibit A : Vista 's system requirements .
Exhibit B : pretty much anything to do with DRM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> What is striking is the sheer amount of people that has a positive bias towards Microsoft that has entered this forum these last years.
You must be reading a different Slashdot to me.
The anti-Microsoft sentiment here is as strong now as it's always been - and I've been reading Slashdot for a \_long\_ time.
Indeed, if anything, the blind anti-Microsoft rage has significantly increased while the genuine arguments have decreased.
Exhibit A: Vista's system requirements.
Exhibit B: pretty much anything to do with DRM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704269</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shills</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247677140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention Sony shills, who seem to always have mod points at slashdot. I was an XCP victim, but any time I say anything negative about Sony I'm modded down.</p><p>I wonder if that's illegal as well? Probably not.</p><p>At any rate, there are also lots of shills here from other companies besides Sony and Microsoft, although it seems the Sony and Microsoft shills seem to get lots of mod points (lots of employees, so it makes sense). In their defense (my God, I can't believe I'm defending MS and Sony) if someone blasted my employer I might mod them down, too, depending on what they said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention Sony shills , who seem to always have mod points at slashdot .
I was an XCP victim , but any time I say anything negative about Sony I 'm modded down.I wonder if that 's illegal as well ?
Probably not.At any rate , there are also lots of shills here from other companies besides Sony and Microsoft , although it seems the Sony and Microsoft shills seem to get lots of mod points ( lots of employees , so it makes sense ) .
In their defense ( my God , I ca n't believe I 'm defending MS and Sony ) if someone blasted my employer I might mod them down , too , depending on what they said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention Sony shills, who seem to always have mod points at slashdot.
I was an XCP victim, but any time I say anything negative about Sony I'm modded down.I wonder if that's illegal as well?
Probably not.At any rate, there are also lots of shills here from other companies besides Sony and Microsoft, although it seems the Sony and Microsoft shills seem to get lots of mod points (lots of employees, so it makes sense).
In their defense (my God, I can't believe I'm defending MS and Sony) if someone blasted my employer I might mod them down, too, depending on what they said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703795</id>
	<title>Re:legal</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1247674560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A market without transparency is not a market. Consumers need accurate information to make informed decisions. The goal of major corporations is to deceive people as much as is legally possible for the greatest short-term profit possible. If the company in question gained more profit than they had to pay with fines, it's a win-win for them.</p><p>So, in a healthy market, astroturfing is illegal. I doubt this will effect any company behavior, since the fine was so low. They will just come up with some legal loophole like hiring contractors to conduct interviews with clients and put those up on the web. In a truly healthy market, any flagrant violations of the law by the CEO or a significant portion of the organization would result in the revoking of their corporate charter and the seizure and auction of all company property.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A market without transparency is not a market .
Consumers need accurate information to make informed decisions .
The goal of major corporations is to deceive people as much as is legally possible for the greatest short-term profit possible .
If the company in question gained more profit than they had to pay with fines , it 's a win-win for them.So , in a healthy market , astroturfing is illegal .
I doubt this will effect any company behavior , since the fine was so low .
They will just come up with some legal loophole like hiring contractors to conduct interviews with clients and put those up on the web .
In a truly healthy market , any flagrant violations of the law by the CEO or a significant portion of the organization would result in the revoking of their corporate charter and the seizure and auction of all company property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A market without transparency is not a market.
Consumers need accurate information to make informed decisions.
The goal of major corporations is to deceive people as much as is legally possible for the greatest short-term profit possible.
If the company in question gained more profit than they had to pay with fines, it's a win-win for them.So, in a healthy market, astroturfing is illegal.
I doubt this will effect any company behavior, since the fine was so low.
They will just come up with some legal loophole like hiring contractors to conduct interviews with clients and put those up on the web.
In a truly healthy market, any flagrant violations of the law by the CEO or a significant portion of the organization would result in the revoking of their corporate charter and the seizure and auction of all company property.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704045</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shills</title>
	<author>An ominous Cow art</author>
	<datestamp>1247676060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>She shills C-sharp shells by the sea shore.</p><p>Or something like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She shills C-sharp shells by the sea shore.Or something like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She shills C-sharp shells by the sea shore.Or something like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28708073</id>
	<title>From the article....</title>
	<author>LittleGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1247651160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Another internal email directed a Lifestyle Lift employee to 'Put your wig and skirt on and tell them about the great experience you had.'</p></div><p>Wouldn't the deep voice and five-o-clock shadow been a tipoff?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another internal email directed a Lifestyle Lift employee to 'Put your wig and skirt on and tell them about the great experience you had .
'Would n't the deep voice and five-o-clock shadow been a tipoff ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another internal email directed a Lifestyle Lift employee to 'Put your wig and skirt on and tell them about the great experience you had.
'Wouldn't the deep voice and five-o-clock shadow been a tipoff?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705093</id>
	<title>Re:What I really want to know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247681040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>What I really want to know is this: does this "anti-astroturfing" law apply to "Team Windows"? </i>
</p><p>Certainly.  However, the law requires more evidence than "does not hate Microsoft, therefore is an astroturfer".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I really want to know is this : does this " anti-astroturfing " law apply to " Team Windows " ?
Certainly. However , the law requires more evidence than " does not hate Microsoft , therefore is an astroturfer " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> What I really want to know is this: does this "anti-astroturfing" law apply to "Team Windows"?
Certainly.  However, the law requires more evidence than "does not hate Microsoft, therefore is an astroturfer".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704357</id>
	<title>Re:Individual Responsibility</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247677560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't punish the poor sap who posted the shillage if he was ordered to, I'd fine whoever gave the order. Punishing the low level worker wouldn't fix anything. He's between a rock and a hard place - get fired for not following orders, or get fined for following them.</p><p>If it's corporate policy to break the law, the CEO and board should be held accountable, and not just to the stockbrokers but to the government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't punish the poor sap who posted the shillage if he was ordered to , I 'd fine whoever gave the order .
Punishing the low level worker would n't fix anything .
He 's between a rock and a hard place - get fired for not following orders , or get fined for following them.If it 's corporate policy to break the law , the CEO and board should be held accountable , and not just to the stockbrokers but to the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't punish the poor sap who posted the shillage if he was ordered to, I'd fine whoever gave the order.
Punishing the low level worker wouldn't fix anything.
He's between a rock and a hard place - get fired for not following orders, or get fined for following them.If it's corporate policy to break the law, the CEO and board should be held accountable, and not just to the stockbrokers but to the government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703515</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1247672760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Marketing department tells lies about their product. News at 11.</p></div><p>Indeed.  I think that prosecuting this company for astro-turfing is pointless and inconsistent.  As long as we have such a laissez-faire attitude towards all the lies and misdirection that marketing people have been doing for decades now, going after a handful of astro-turfers does nothing but give people a false-sense of trust in what they read on the net.  Never mind the free speech implications that come into play when defining exactly where the line is between valid promotion and astro-turfing. (does giving away a free "review" produce with a promise of future "review" products qualify as illegal, what if the promise is never spelled out?  what if its not a give-away, just an open-ended loan, or what if it is  1 year loan and it just so happens that the next review product shows up in exactly one year too?)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Marketing department tells lies about their product .
News at 11.Indeed .
I think that prosecuting this company for astro-turfing is pointless and inconsistent .
As long as we have such a laissez-faire attitude towards all the lies and misdirection that marketing people have been doing for decades now , going after a handful of astro-turfers does nothing but give people a false-sense of trust in what they read on the net .
Never mind the free speech implications that come into play when defining exactly where the line is between valid promotion and astro-turfing .
( does giving away a free " review " produce with a promise of future " review " products qualify as illegal , what if the promise is never spelled out ?
what if its not a give-away , just an open-ended loan , or what if it is 1 year loan and it just so happens that the next review product shows up in exactly one year too ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Marketing department tells lies about their product.
News at 11.Indeed.
I think that prosecuting this company for astro-turfing is pointless and inconsistent.
As long as we have such a laissez-faire attitude towards all the lies and misdirection that marketing people have been doing for decades now, going after a handful of astro-turfers does nothing but give people a false-sense of trust in what they read on the net.
Never mind the free speech implications that come into play when defining exactly where the line is between valid promotion and astro-turfing.
(does giving away a free "review" produce with a promise of future "review" products qualify as illegal, what if the promise is never spelled out?
what if its not a give-away, just an open-ended loan, or what if it is  1 year loan and it just so happens that the next review product shows up in exactly one year too?
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703475</id>
	<title>legal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247672580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced yesterday that Lifestyle Lift, a cosmetic surgery company who posted fake reviews of their services on various websites, will have to pay $300,000 to the state of New York. Cuomo's office says this is the first US case to specifically target astroturfing on the internet.</p><p>How is this illegal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced yesterday that Lifestyle Lift , a cosmetic surgery company who posted fake reviews of their services on various websites , will have to pay $ 300,000 to the state of New York .
Cuomo 's office says this is the first US case to specifically target astroturfing on the internet.How is this illegal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced yesterday that Lifestyle Lift, a cosmetic surgery company who posted fake reviews of their services on various websites, will have to pay $300,000 to the state of New York.
Cuomo's office says this is the first US case to specifically target astroturfing on the internet.How is this illegal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703565</id>
	<title>Thank you Slashdot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247673180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you Slashdot! Reading you every day while at work has taught me so much about Technology and has made me a productive member of our IT team.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you Slashdot !
Reading you every day while at work has taught me so much about Technology and has made me a productive member of our IT team .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you Slashdot!
Reading you every day while at work has taught me so much about Technology and has made me a productive member of our IT team.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704191</id>
	<title>Re:Like phone sex with fat ugly chicks or even dud</title>
	<author>The Archon V2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1247676780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But I have to credit Lifestyle Lift with the trustworthiness needed to at least make their employees wear skirts and wigs.</p></div><p>Yeah! Why is the Attorney General bigoted against transvestites?!</p><p>

(Dons wig.) SOLIDARITY!</p><p>

Oh, wait, my coworkers are looking at me funny. Solidarity... after work!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I have to credit Lifestyle Lift with the trustworthiness needed to at least make their employees wear skirts and wigs.Yeah !
Why is the Attorney General bigoted against transvestites ? !
( Dons wig .
) SOLIDARITY !
Oh , wait , my coworkers are looking at me funny .
Solidarity... after work !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I have to credit Lifestyle Lift with the trustworthiness needed to at least make their employees wear skirts and wigs.Yeah!
Why is the Attorney General bigoted against transvestites?!
(Dons wig.
) SOLIDARITY!
Oh, wait, my coworkers are looking at me funny.
Solidarity... after work!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703935</id>
	<title>Re:Individual Responsibility</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247675400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also in most companies you are expected to do what your boss asks you.  Its their company, you are just acting for them on their whims.  So yeah it should be the top level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also in most companies you are expected to do what your boss asks you .
Its their company , you are just acting for them on their whims .
So yeah it should be the top level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also in most companies you are expected to do what your boss asks you.
Its their company, you are just acting for them on their whims.
So yeah it should be the top level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704731</id>
	<title>Re:Not the first!</title>
	<author>mpaulsen</author>
	<datestamp>1247679600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Purdy paint brush folks (part of Sherwin Williams) had their marketing firm (M Force, Brown &amp; Martin) spamming usenet and message boards with fake customer testimonials.

<a href="http://www.ownrecognizance.com/purdy.html" title="ownrecognizance.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.ownrecognizance.com/purdy.html</a> [ownrecognizance.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Purdy paint brush folks ( part of Sherwin Williams ) had their marketing firm ( M Force , Brown &amp; Martin ) spamming usenet and message boards with fake customer testimonials .
http : //www.ownrecognizance.com/purdy.html [ ownrecognizance.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Purdy paint brush folks (part of Sherwin Williams) had their marketing firm (M Force, Brown &amp; Martin) spamming usenet and message boards with fake customer testimonials.
http://www.ownrecognizance.com/purdy.html [ownrecognizance.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706535</id>
	<title>Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247687280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>with 65 trillion dollars stolen (we can argue about the exact amount), do you seriously think $300,000 is a barrier to stopping this kind of activity?</p><p>Hell, it's a cosmetic surgery company, three patients with a facelift,  and they've paid the freaking thing off. This isn't even a slap on the hand, it's the cost of spreading fascism--an acceptable cost to those who are destroying America.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>with 65 trillion dollars stolen ( we can argue about the exact amount ) , do you seriously think $ 300,000 is a barrier to stopping this kind of activity ? Hell , it 's a cosmetic surgery company , three patients with a facelift , and they 've paid the freaking thing off .
This is n't even a slap on the hand , it 's the cost of spreading fascism--an acceptable cost to those who are destroying America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with 65 trillion dollars stolen (we can argue about the exact amount), do you seriously think $300,000 is a barrier to stopping this kind of activity?Hell, it's a cosmetic surgery company, three patients with a facelift,  and they've paid the freaking thing off.
This isn't even a slap on the hand, it's the cost of spreading fascism--an acceptable cost to those who are destroying America.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703645</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247673720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Marketing department tells lies about their product.  News at 11.</p></div><p>Ha, yeah, no kidding... Clorox pays people to get on TV and tell the world how good their bleach is, whether or not they've ever used it.  I don't see how this is any different.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Marketing department tells lies about their product .
News at 11.Ha , yeah , no kidding... Clorox pays people to get on TV and tell the world how good their bleach is , whether or not they 've ever used it .
I do n't see how this is any different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Marketing department tells lies about their product.
News at 11.Ha, yeah, no kidding... Clorox pays people to get on TV and tell the world how good their bleach is, whether or not they've ever used it.
I don't see how this is any different.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703911</id>
	<title>Re:why "to the State of New York" ?</title>
	<author>FatRichie</author>
	<datestamp>1247675280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because it's in their jurisdiction.  Just like if you get a parking ticket in your city, you pay the fine to the city...  even though the state may have given the city funds to assist in building the street on which you got ticketed, or the federal government may have had funds trickle down to that street as well.

Frankly I don't care who ends up with the money, just so long as a$$hats like Lifestyle are forced to give their money away as punishment for schenanigans like this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it 's in their jurisdiction .
Just like if you get a parking ticket in your city , you pay the fine to the city... even though the state may have given the city funds to assist in building the street on which you got ticketed , or the federal government may have had funds trickle down to that street as well .
Frankly I do n't care who ends up with the money , just so long as a $ $ hats like Lifestyle are forced to give their money away as punishment for schenanigans like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it's in their jurisdiction.
Just like if you get a parking ticket in your city, you pay the fine to the city...  even though the state may have given the city funds to assist in building the street on which you got ticketed, or the federal government may have had funds trickle down to that street as well.
Frankly I don't care who ends up with the money, just so long as a$$hats like Lifestyle are forced to give their money away as punishment for schenanigans like this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704263</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shills</title>
	<author>kalirion</author>
	<datestamp>1247677080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All right, fess up, how much did Linus pay you to post that comment?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All right , fess up , how much did Linus pay you to post that comment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All right, fess up, how much did Linus pay you to post that comment?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703509</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>glop</author>
	<datestamp>1247672760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you read the summary?<br>They lied and got fined.<br>That sounds like news to me.<br>I had always known that people were planting fake reviews on forums and thought the only defense be cautious. So hearing that this is actually illegal is big news in my opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you read the summary ? They lied and got fined.That sounds like news to me.I had always known that people were planting fake reviews on forums and thought the only defense be cautious .
So hearing that this is actually illegal is big news in my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you read the summary?They lied and got fined.That sounds like news to me.I had always known that people were planting fake reviews on forums and thought the only defense be cautious.
So hearing that this is actually illegal is big news in my opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703659</id>
	<title>Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247673780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The overall problem is that the message <i>still</i> hasn't gotten out to people.</p><p>  <em>Stop believing everything you read on the internet; most of what you read is, at best, an opinion.  The rest of it is entertainment and outright lies.</em> </p><p>If you're watching a third rate cable channel a 3 a.m. and you see a "news style" interview with a doctor about a growing medical problem that can be solved with a supplement called "pomegranacai" extract or by using a "XTremeGazelle Exercycle" with testominials from other doctors in white coats and satisfied customers who lost 50 lbs, <em>it is completely fake.</em> </p><p>If you know that, why would you believe anything on the internet with testimonials, blogs, google ad links, myspace links and the like?  Are you the first person who's never been flooded with SPAM?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The overall problem is that the message still has n't gotten out to people .
Stop believing everything you read on the internet ; most of what you read is , at best , an opinion .
The rest of it is entertainment and outright lies .
If you 're watching a third rate cable channel a 3 a.m. and you see a " news style " interview with a doctor about a growing medical problem that can be solved with a supplement called " pomegranacai " extract or by using a " XTremeGazelle Exercycle " with testominials from other doctors in white coats and satisfied customers who lost 50 lbs , it is completely fake .
If you know that , why would you believe anything on the internet with testimonials , blogs , google ad links , myspace links and the like ?
Are you the first person who 's never been flooded with SPAM ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The overall problem is that the message still hasn't gotten out to people.
Stop believing everything you read on the internet; most of what you read is, at best, an opinion.
The rest of it is entertainment and outright lies.
If you're watching a third rate cable channel a 3 a.m. and you see a "news style" interview with a doctor about a growing medical problem that can be solved with a supplement called "pomegranacai" extract or by using a "XTremeGazelle Exercycle" with testominials from other doctors in white coats and satisfied customers who lost 50 lbs, it is completely fake.
If you know that, why would you believe anything on the internet with testimonials, blogs, google ad links, myspace links and the like?
Are you the first person who's never been flooded with SPAM?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703343</id>
	<title>Suffer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247671860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pwned... and so they should be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pwned... and so they should be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pwned... and so they should be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704511</id>
	<title>Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247678400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In order to not be fined $300,000usd, instead of posting glowing reviews of my product, I will start posting negative reviews of my competitor's product and will ask my sales force to spread FUD about them...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>What?</p></div><p>Instead of attacking your competitors in some form of infantile temper-tantrum, why not use these same marketing resources to provide dedicated out-reach support for your products and services? Perhaps answering questions honestly, transparently, and completely?

Jeesh, use the brains you were given to understand your customers and  to making your products/services better...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to not be fined $ 300,000usd , instead of posting glowing reviews of my product , I will start posting negative reviews of my competitor 's product and will ask my sales force to spread FUD about them... ...What ? Instead of attacking your competitors in some form of infantile temper-tantrum , why not use these same marketing resources to provide dedicated out-reach support for your products and services ?
Perhaps answering questions honestly , transparently , and completely ?
Jeesh , use the brains you were given to understand your customers and to making your products/services better.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to not be fined $300,000usd, instead of posting glowing reviews of my product, I will start posting negative reviews of my competitor's product and will ask my sales force to spread FUD about them... ...What?Instead of attacking your competitors in some form of infantile temper-tantrum, why not use these same marketing resources to provide dedicated out-reach support for your products and services?
Perhaps answering questions honestly, transparently, and completely?
Jeesh, use the brains you were given to understand your customers and  to making your products/services better...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704815</id>
	<title>Re:Excuse me, but what is wrong with this?</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1247679960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>OK, they are lying. Everybody lies. All advertising is lying in one form or another.</i></p><p>"One form or another" is where the difference between legal and illegal lies.  The majority of lies in advertising, the ones that are legal, are the ones that <i>appear</i> to be saying something when really they are saying nothing that could really be called a lie.  When Ford describes their trucks as "tough", or Miller Brewing says you can drink their "great tasting" product to live the "High Life", they're trying to give you a certain emotional impression about their product that is largely bullshit, but ultimately to the extent that it means anything at all it's all just subjective opinion.  Because actual lies, about facts, are illegal.</p><p>When Ford says that the F150 has the most HP of any truck in its class, they make sure that claim is true, even throwing up some fine print describing exactly what 'class' means or what trucks they are specifically comparing to.  Does that extra HP make Ford trucks "tough"?  They sure hope you think so, but since that adjective's very meaning is subjective, you couldn't ever prove it false.</p><p>When Miller says Miller Light uses Triple Hops Brewing, that is almost certainly true.  The implication that this gives Miller Light great taste is definitely what they want you to take away from the ad, and while it's bullshit it's subjective bullshit.  Which is the whole point.</p><p><i>False advertising? I doubt it.  Certainly no more false than Wilford Brimley talking about Liberty Medical products as if he was at all familiar with the company before they started paying him.</i></p><p>Yes, he talks "as if" he just loves Liberty Mutual in his heart, but he is never presented as anything but a paid endorsement.  The second they claimed that Wilford Brimley was <i>not</i> paid by Liberty Mutual and that he just <i>had</i> to help get the word out, that's when they'd fall afoul of the law.  Because that would, in fact, be much more false, and an actionable lie.</p><p>So when some shill says "I haven't been paid by Damn Girl U So Ugly Let Us Cut You Up, Inc, but I just love their facelifts!", and they have been paid, that's a specific factual lie and illegal.</p><p><i>No, this isn't a good start. This is not "making the Internet safer." If you believe testimonials on the Internet you are a fool, because all of them are designed to elicit behavior - yours. Every single review someone takes the time to write is either telling you how great something is or how bad. Either way, someone was so motivated as to write the review to "help" others to make the "right" decision. </i></p><p>Yes but people naturally react differently when the reviewer's motivation was "I was paid to write a positive/negative review" versus "I sincerely like/dislike this product".  Nearly all communication is designed to "elicit behavior", treating that as inherently bad or untrustworthy is foolish.  Yes assuming most reviews on the internet are of the sincere kind is also foolish due to anonymity, that doesn't mean you can't get anything useful out of reviews on the internet.  But I guess you never have?</p><p>No it isn't "making the Internet safer" because paid astroturfing is so widespread that fining one company making false claims isn't even going to come close to discouraging the behavior.</p><p>Yes it's a good start.  More of this, please.  Lots more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , they are lying .
Everybody lies .
All advertising is lying in one form or another .
" One form or another " is where the difference between legal and illegal lies .
The majority of lies in advertising , the ones that are legal , are the ones that appear to be saying something when really they are saying nothing that could really be called a lie .
When Ford describes their trucks as " tough " , or Miller Brewing says you can drink their " great tasting " product to live the " High Life " , they 're trying to give you a certain emotional impression about their product that is largely bullshit , but ultimately to the extent that it means anything at all it 's all just subjective opinion .
Because actual lies , about facts , are illegal.When Ford says that the F150 has the most HP of any truck in its class , they make sure that claim is true , even throwing up some fine print describing exactly what 'class ' means or what trucks they are specifically comparing to .
Does that extra HP make Ford trucks " tough " ?
They sure hope you think so , but since that adjective 's very meaning is subjective , you could n't ever prove it false.When Miller says Miller Light uses Triple Hops Brewing , that is almost certainly true .
The implication that this gives Miller Light great taste is definitely what they want you to take away from the ad , and while it 's bullshit it 's subjective bullshit .
Which is the whole point.False advertising ?
I doubt it .
Certainly no more false than Wilford Brimley talking about Liberty Medical products as if he was at all familiar with the company before they started paying him.Yes , he talks " as if " he just loves Liberty Mutual in his heart , but he is never presented as anything but a paid endorsement .
The second they claimed that Wilford Brimley was not paid by Liberty Mutual and that he just had to help get the word out , that 's when they 'd fall afoul of the law .
Because that would , in fact , be much more false , and an actionable lie.So when some shill says " I have n't been paid by Damn Girl U So Ugly Let Us Cut You Up , Inc , but I just love their facelifts !
" , and they have been paid , that 's a specific factual lie and illegal.No , this is n't a good start .
This is not " making the Internet safer .
" If you believe testimonials on the Internet you are a fool , because all of them are designed to elicit behavior - yours .
Every single review someone takes the time to write is either telling you how great something is or how bad .
Either way , someone was so motivated as to write the review to " help " others to make the " right " decision .
Yes but people naturally react differently when the reviewer 's motivation was " I was paid to write a positive/negative review " versus " I sincerely like/dislike this product " .
Nearly all communication is designed to " elicit behavior " , treating that as inherently bad or untrustworthy is foolish .
Yes assuming most reviews on the internet are of the sincere kind is also foolish due to anonymity , that does n't mean you ca n't get anything useful out of reviews on the internet .
But I guess you never have ? No it is n't " making the Internet safer " because paid astroturfing is so widespread that fining one company making false claims is n't even going to come close to discouraging the behavior.Yes it 's a good start .
More of this , please .
Lots more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, they are lying.
Everybody lies.
All advertising is lying in one form or another.
"One form or another" is where the difference between legal and illegal lies.
The majority of lies in advertising, the ones that are legal, are the ones that appear to be saying something when really they are saying nothing that could really be called a lie.
When Ford describes their trucks as "tough", or Miller Brewing says you can drink their "great tasting" product to live the "High Life", they're trying to give you a certain emotional impression about their product that is largely bullshit, but ultimately to the extent that it means anything at all it's all just subjective opinion.
Because actual lies, about facts, are illegal.When Ford says that the F150 has the most HP of any truck in its class, they make sure that claim is true, even throwing up some fine print describing exactly what 'class' means or what trucks they are specifically comparing to.
Does that extra HP make Ford trucks "tough"?
They sure hope you think so, but since that adjective's very meaning is subjective, you couldn't ever prove it false.When Miller says Miller Light uses Triple Hops Brewing, that is almost certainly true.
The implication that this gives Miller Light great taste is definitely what they want you to take away from the ad, and while it's bullshit it's subjective bullshit.
Which is the whole point.False advertising?
I doubt it.
Certainly no more false than Wilford Brimley talking about Liberty Medical products as if he was at all familiar with the company before they started paying him.Yes, he talks "as if" he just loves Liberty Mutual in his heart, but he is never presented as anything but a paid endorsement.
The second they claimed that Wilford Brimley was not paid by Liberty Mutual and that he just had to help get the word out, that's when they'd fall afoul of the law.
Because that would, in fact, be much more false, and an actionable lie.So when some shill says "I haven't been paid by Damn Girl U So Ugly Let Us Cut You Up, Inc, but I just love their facelifts!
", and they have been paid, that's a specific factual lie and illegal.No, this isn't a good start.
This is not "making the Internet safer.
" If you believe testimonials on the Internet you are a fool, because all of them are designed to elicit behavior - yours.
Every single review someone takes the time to write is either telling you how great something is or how bad.
Either way, someone was so motivated as to write the review to "help" others to make the "right" decision.
Yes but people naturally react differently when the reviewer's motivation was "I was paid to write a positive/negative review" versus "I sincerely like/dislike this product".
Nearly all communication is designed to "elicit behavior", treating that as inherently bad or untrustworthy is foolish.
Yes assuming most reviews on the internet are of the sincere kind is also foolish due to anonymity, that doesn't mean you can't get anything useful out of reviews on the internet.
But I guess you never have?No it isn't "making the Internet safer" because paid astroturfing is so widespread that fining one company making false claims isn't even going to come close to discouraging the behavior.Yes it's a good start.
More of this, please.
Lots more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704043</id>
	<title>Billy Mays Here</title>
	<author>tinkertim</author>
	<datestamp>1247676060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi! Billy Mays here with a completely new and revolutionary product called Internet Astroturfing! Read what thousands of our satisfied clients have to say about IA on popular blogs and forums<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi !
Billy Mays here with a completely new and revolutionary product called Internet Astroturfing !
Read what thousands of our satisfied clients have to say about IA on popular blogs and forums ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi!
Billy Mays here with a completely new and revolutionary product called Internet Astroturfing!
Read what thousands of our satisfied clients have to say about IA on popular blogs and forums ....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704885</id>
	<title>I've seen this first hand</title>
	<author>escchr</author>
	<datestamp>1247680320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I work for a large health care provider in california and I know for a fact that some of the goons here do this very same thing. Trying to pump up the organization even though they have multiple malpractice lawsuits as well as labor lawsuits. They have even had us in the IS dept install anonymizer on their pcs so they can't be traced back to our hospital. Now that I hear of this I hope the people here get caught and fined also.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for a large health care provider in california and I know for a fact that some of the goons here do this very same thing .
Trying to pump up the organization even though they have multiple malpractice lawsuits as well as labor lawsuits .
They have even had us in the IS dept install anonymizer on their pcs so they ca n't be traced back to our hospital .
Now that I hear of this I hope the people here get caught and fined also .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for a large health care provider in california and I know for a fact that some of the goons here do this very same thing.
Trying to pump up the organization even though they have multiple malpractice lawsuits as well as labor lawsuits.
They have even had us in the IS dept install anonymizer on their pcs so they can't be traced back to our hospital.
Now that I hear of this I hope the people here get caught and fined also.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705675</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shills</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1247683200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You may be a genuine McDonalds fan. There really ARE some people who have acquired a test for their food, even though the majority view it as a last resort.</i></p><p>Actually, I think a lot more people really LIKE McDonald's food than you realize.  There's a lot of lower-class people who never go to "real" restaurants who think McDonald's/Burger King/etc. is a treat, and eat there a lot.  Not coincidentally, these people tend to be obese.</p><p>You're never going to find these people dining in a nice sit-down restaurant eating a $10 hamburger, however.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You may be a genuine McDonalds fan .
There really ARE some people who have acquired a test for their food , even though the majority view it as a last resort.Actually , I think a lot more people really LIKE McDonald 's food than you realize .
There 's a lot of lower-class people who never go to " real " restaurants who think McDonald 's/Burger King/etc .
is a treat , and eat there a lot .
Not coincidentally , these people tend to be obese.You 're never going to find these people dining in a nice sit-down restaurant eating a $ 10 hamburger , however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may be a genuine McDonalds fan.
There really ARE some people who have acquired a test for their food, even though the majority view it as a last resort.Actually, I think a lot more people really LIKE McDonald's food than you realize.
There's a lot of lower-class people who never go to "real" restaurants who think McDonald's/Burger King/etc.
is a treat, and eat there a lot.
Not coincidentally, these people tend to be obese.You're never going to find these people dining in a nice sit-down restaurant eating a $10 hamburger, however.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704311</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483</id>
	<title>Microsoft shills</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247672580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now hopefully someone will look into the MS shills frequenting this and other technology sites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now hopefully someone will look into the MS shills frequenting this and other technology sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now hopefully someone will look into the MS shills frequenting this and other technology sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704641</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shills</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247679000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You conveniently ignore "Microsoft shills" were real and genuinely uncovered in the antitrust trial rather than being some Internet or fan boy's paranoia delusion.</p><p>To me the company has, time and again, demonstrated an unethical pattern and nothing it does should escape extreme scrutiny and major skepticism.</p><p>Only fools would believe the Microsoft of today is culturally not the same company that abused its market positions, violated patents, announced vaporware, shipped stolen source code, scammed partners, plotted against competitors with deliberate incompatibilities and even more to expand and embed their dominance.</p><p>OOXML, Silverlight, Bing... are just more of the same sorts of effort to maintain or expand control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You conveniently ignore " Microsoft shills " were real and genuinely uncovered in the antitrust trial rather than being some Internet or fan boy 's paranoia delusion.To me the company has , time and again , demonstrated an unethical pattern and nothing it does should escape extreme scrutiny and major skepticism.Only fools would believe the Microsoft of today is culturally not the same company that abused its market positions , violated patents , announced vaporware , shipped stolen source code , scammed partners , plotted against competitors with deliberate incompatibilities and even more to expand and embed their dominance.OOXML , Silverlight , Bing... are just more of the same sorts of effort to maintain or expand control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You conveniently ignore "Microsoft shills" were real and genuinely uncovered in the antitrust trial rather than being some Internet or fan boy's paranoia delusion.To me the company has, time and again, demonstrated an unethical pattern and nothing it does should escape extreme scrutiny and major skepticism.Only fools would believe the Microsoft of today is culturally not the same company that abused its market positions, violated patents, announced vaporware, shipped stolen source code, scammed partners, plotted against competitors with deliberate incompatibilities and even more to expand and embed their dominance.OOXML, Silverlight, Bing... are just more of the same sorts of effort to maintain or expand control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28715895</id>
	<title>Don't forget the RIAA</title>
	<author>rayk\_sland</author>
	<datestamp>1247755560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good law, good ruling. Maybe penalty is too small, but it's time to go after RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft and a whole host of others who set up 'authorities' to say what they want said, and then quote from them as if they were independent voices.
As earlier reported on slashdot --- <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4079/125/" title="michaelgeist.ca" rel="nofollow">http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4079/125/</a> [michaelgeist.ca]</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good law , good ruling .
Maybe penalty is too small , but it 's time to go after RIAA , MPAA , Microsoft and a whole host of others who set up 'authorities ' to say what they want said , and then quote from them as if they were independent voices .
As earlier reported on slashdot --- http : //www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4079/125/ [ michaelgeist.ca ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good law, good ruling.
Maybe penalty is too small, but it's time to go after RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft and a whole host of others who set up 'authorities' to say what they want said, and then quote from them as if they were independent voices.
As earlier reported on slashdot --- http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4079/125/ [michaelgeist.ca]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705335</id>
	<title>Re:Excuse me, but what is wrong with this?</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1247682000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>but exactly what law did they break? False advertising? I doubt it.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Doubt all you want, but all spokespersons and ad actors are given samples to try before they sign on.  The company has a good faith belief that the actor they hired actually did use the product, and agrees with their lines.  So, it really is a totally different situation.  People are saying that it's because you know the TV actor is a paid actor, but the real reason is, those TV actors are actually made to represent to the company that they've tried the product and like it.  They may lie, but the company has covered its ass!  Take Commodore 64.  They hired William Shatner to hawk their PCs.  They sent him one, and told him to try it out before agreeing to anything.  He didn't.  They pestered him so he took it out of the box, and couldn't figure out how to turn it on, so he just said he'd tried it out and it's fine.  That's totally different than if they'd just run ads with fake names and fake testimonials.  You could try to argue that they should have known he'd just pretend to have used it, and just lie about how much he likes it, so therefore they were lying to the public...but that's a stretch.  I'm sure lots of spokespersons actually use and like the product, even if few of them actively sought out the company to be a spokesperson.
</p><blockquote><div><p>Certainly no more false than Wilford Brimley talking about Liberty Medical products as if he was at all familiar with the company before they started paying him.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Bad choice, because he almost definitely was.  He's been speaking on behalf of the American Diabetes Association, visiting VA hospitals, spreading awareness of diabetes, for longer than he's been a spokesperson for Liberty Medical.  And Liberty Medical is a key member of the ADA, so he was almost certainly aware of their existence well before they paid him a cent, and he probably used their products too, since they're one of the few companies who makes them at all.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he asked THEM, so he could have funding to do radio and TV PSAs, rather than being limited to speaking at VA hospitals and the like.  He's quite the activist, even if most of his causes (gambling and cock fighting) aren't nearly so PC as diabetes awareness.
</p><p>
A better comparison for astroturfing would be a medical journal that's owned and published by a drug company, and full of fake articles about the effectiveness of said drug company's products.  That's disappointingly come up a few times recently, though I have no idea if anything really came of it (other than moral outrage on Slashdot).  But I'd at least hope they'd get a massive fine.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but exactly what law did they break ?
False advertising ?
I doubt it .
Doubt all you want , but all spokespersons and ad actors are given samples to try before they sign on .
The company has a good faith belief that the actor they hired actually did use the product , and agrees with their lines .
So , it really is a totally different situation .
People are saying that it 's because you know the TV actor is a paid actor , but the real reason is , those TV actors are actually made to represent to the company that they 've tried the product and like it .
They may lie , but the company has covered its ass !
Take Commodore 64 .
They hired William Shatner to hawk their PCs .
They sent him one , and told him to try it out before agreeing to anything .
He did n't .
They pestered him so he took it out of the box , and could n't figure out how to turn it on , so he just said he 'd tried it out and it 's fine .
That 's totally different than if they 'd just run ads with fake names and fake testimonials .
You could try to argue that they should have known he 'd just pretend to have used it , and just lie about how much he likes it , so therefore they were lying to the public...but that 's a stretch .
I 'm sure lots of spokespersons actually use and like the product , even if few of them actively sought out the company to be a spokesperson .
Certainly no more false than Wilford Brimley talking about Liberty Medical products as if he was at all familiar with the company before they started paying him .
Bad choice , because he almost definitely was .
He 's been speaking on behalf of the American Diabetes Association , visiting VA hospitals , spreading awareness of diabetes , for longer than he 's been a spokesperson for Liberty Medical .
And Liberty Medical is a key member of the ADA , so he was almost certainly aware of their existence well before they paid him a cent , and he probably used their products too , since they 're one of the few companies who makes them at all .
In fact , I would n't be surprised if he asked THEM , so he could have funding to do radio and TV PSAs , rather than being limited to speaking at VA hospitals and the like .
He 's quite the activist , even if most of his causes ( gambling and cock fighting ) are n't nearly so PC as diabetes awareness .
A better comparison for astroturfing would be a medical journal that 's owned and published by a drug company , and full of fake articles about the effectiveness of said drug company 's products .
That 's disappointingly come up a few times recently , though I have no idea if anything really came of it ( other than moral outrage on Slashdot ) .
But I 'd at least hope they 'd get a massive fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but exactly what law did they break?
False advertising?
I doubt it.
Doubt all you want, but all spokespersons and ad actors are given samples to try before they sign on.
The company has a good faith belief that the actor they hired actually did use the product, and agrees with their lines.
So, it really is a totally different situation.
People are saying that it's because you know the TV actor is a paid actor, but the real reason is, those TV actors are actually made to represent to the company that they've tried the product and like it.
They may lie, but the company has covered its ass!
Take Commodore 64.
They hired William Shatner to hawk their PCs.
They sent him one, and told him to try it out before agreeing to anything.
He didn't.
They pestered him so he took it out of the box, and couldn't figure out how to turn it on, so he just said he'd tried it out and it's fine.
That's totally different than if they'd just run ads with fake names and fake testimonials.
You could try to argue that they should have known he'd just pretend to have used it, and just lie about how much he likes it, so therefore they were lying to the public...but that's a stretch.
I'm sure lots of spokespersons actually use and like the product, even if few of them actively sought out the company to be a spokesperson.
Certainly no more false than Wilford Brimley talking about Liberty Medical products as if he was at all familiar with the company before they started paying him.
Bad choice, because he almost definitely was.
He's been speaking on behalf of the American Diabetes Association, visiting VA hospitals, spreading awareness of diabetes, for longer than he's been a spokesperson for Liberty Medical.
And Liberty Medical is a key member of the ADA, so he was almost certainly aware of their existence well before they paid him a cent, and he probably used their products too, since they're one of the few companies who makes them at all.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he asked THEM, so he could have funding to do radio and TV PSAs, rather than being limited to speaking at VA hospitals and the like.
He's quite the activist, even if most of his causes (gambling and cock fighting) aren't nearly so PC as diabetes awareness.
A better comparison for astroturfing would be a medical journal that's owned and published by a drug company, and full of fake articles about the effectiveness of said drug company's products.
That's disappointingly come up a few times recently, though I have no idea if anything really came of it (other than moral outrage on Slashdot).
But I'd at least hope they'd get a massive fine.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705157</id>
	<title>This is only a start</title>
	<author>MazzThePianoman</author>
	<datestamp>1247681280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Web Hosting is one area where they are going to have a field day with. I recently left a horrible webhost (double-billing, not staffing cancellation lines, technical support staff on shotty VOIP lines that hardly speak English) and know they only survive because of fake reviews and of the like.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Web Hosting is one area where they are going to have a field day with .
I recently left a horrible webhost ( double-billing , not staffing cancellation lines , technical support staff on shotty VOIP lines that hardly speak English ) and know they only survive because of fake reviews and of the like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Web Hosting is one area where they are going to have a field day with.
I recently left a horrible webhost (double-billing, not staffing cancellation lines, technical support staff on shotty VOIP lines that hardly speak English) and know they only survive because of fake reviews and of the like.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703277</id>
	<title>niggers etc...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247671560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lazy, violent, untrustworthy.</p><p>you get the idea....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lazy , violent , untrustworthy.you get the idea... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lazy, violent, untrustworthy.you get the idea....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705485</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shills</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247682480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now hopefully someone will look into the MS shills frequenting this and other technology sites.</p></div><p>You sound like a typical Apple shill.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now hopefully someone will look into the MS shills frequenting this and other technology sites.You sound like a typical Apple shill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now hopefully someone will look into the MS shills frequenting this and other technology sites.You sound like a typical Apple shill.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703375</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Aristophrenia</author>
	<datestamp>1247672040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like Sandra Lee wasn't happy with the results...<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
(Google their names before you mod off-topic)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like Sandra Lee was n't happy with the results.. . ( Google their names before you mod off-topic )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like Sandra Lee wasn't happy with the results...




(Google their names before you mod off-topic)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704953</id>
	<title>Re:Excuse me, but what is wrong with this?</title>
	<author>innocent\_white\_lamb</author>
	<datestamp>1247680620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>All advertising is lying in one form or another.</i> <br>
&nbsp; <br>That's an exaggerated view of the situation.<br>
&nbsp; <br>"Don's Lawn Mowing Service - We mow your lawn for $15 (plus taxes)!" isn't a lie.  And there are lots of ads of that type around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All advertising is lying in one form or another .
  That 's an exaggerated view of the situation .
  " Don 's Lawn Mowing Service - We mow your lawn for $ 15 ( plus taxes ) !
" is n't a lie .
And there are lots of ads of that type around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All advertising is lying in one form or another.
  That's an exaggerated view of the situation.
  "Don's Lawn Mowing Service - We mow your lawn for $15 (plus taxes)!
" isn't a lie.
And there are lots of ads of that type around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704239</id>
	<title>Re:legal</title>
	<author>rpillala</author>
	<datestamp>1247677020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It sounds like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire\_fraud" title="wikipedia.org">wire fraud</a> [wikipedia.org] to me.  Even though wikipedia is no place to get legal advice, the definition of wire fraud is included in the article. I followed their <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1343.html" title="cornell.edu">link</a> [cornell.edu] to the appropriate US Code section:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for <b>obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations</b>, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.</p></div><p>  The emphasis is mine, and I think that's where this activity on the part of Lifestyle Lifts employees is illegal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like wire fraud [ wikipedia.org ] to me .
Even though wikipedia is no place to get legal advice , the definition of wire fraud is included in the article .
I followed their link [ cornell.edu ] to the appropriate US Code section : Whoever , having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud , or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses , representations , or promises , transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire , radio , or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce , any writings , signs , signals , pictures , or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice , shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years , or both .
The emphasis is mine , and I think that 's where this activity on the part of Lifestyle Lifts employees is illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like wire fraud [wikipedia.org] to me.
Even though wikipedia is no place to get legal advice, the definition of wire fraud is included in the article.
I followed their link [cornell.edu] to the appropriate US Code section:Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
The emphasis is mine, and I think that's where this activity on the part of Lifestyle Lifts employees is illegal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704907</id>
	<title>Pug Stalwart</title>
	<author>TimeAddict</author>
	<datestamp>1247680380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah yes Astroturfing, if only Fox News, and the other major networks weren't all paid shills for faceless robber barons and multinationals.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes Astroturfing , if only Fox News , and the other major networks were n't all paid shills for faceless robber barons and multinationals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes Astroturfing, if only Fox News, and the other major networks weren't all paid shills for faceless robber barons and multinationals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704111</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shills</title>
	<author>socrplayr813</author>
	<datestamp>1247676360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, because no sane person could ever disagree with you.</p><p>While there are probably MS shills out there (just like every other major company), the fact that you specifically target them in a story not at all about Microsoft suggests that you're just anti-Microsoft, which really isn't much different from being a shill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because no sane person could ever disagree with you.While there are probably MS shills out there ( just like every other major company ) , the fact that you specifically target them in a story not at all about Microsoft suggests that you 're just anti-Microsoft , which really is n't much different from being a shill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because no sane person could ever disagree with you.While there are probably MS shills out there (just like every other major company), the fact that you specifically target them in a story not at all about Microsoft suggests that you're just anti-Microsoft, which really isn't much different from being a shill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706819</id>
	<title>Re:What I really want to know</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1247688420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Certainly. However, the law requires more evidence than "does not hate Microsoft, therefore is an astroturfer".</p></div></blockquote><p>There are several accounts here on Slashdot, though, that not only vehemently defend Microsoft, but use Microsoft marketing clueless drivel to do so. Saying that Windows is better because adopting Linux on your server is more costly due to retraining costs is sure to get you labeled as an "astroturfer."  Surely if that is your argument, you can come up with a better one than that load of BS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Certainly .
However , the law requires more evidence than " does not hate Microsoft , therefore is an astroturfer " .There are several accounts here on Slashdot , though , that not only vehemently defend Microsoft , but use Microsoft marketing clueless drivel to do so .
Saying that Windows is better because adopting Linux on your server is more costly due to retraining costs is sure to get you labeled as an " astroturfer .
" Surely if that is your argument , you can come up with a better one than that load of BS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Certainly.
However, the law requires more evidence than "does not hate Microsoft, therefore is an astroturfer".There are several accounts here on Slashdot, though, that not only vehemently defend Microsoft, but use Microsoft marketing clueless drivel to do so.
Saying that Windows is better because adopting Linux on your server is more costly due to retraining costs is sure to get you labeled as an "astroturfer.
"  Surely if that is your argument, you can come up with a better one than that load of BS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705845</id>
	<title>Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1247683860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>But lying about your product and/or your competitor's product is so much easier than actually improving your product. Don't they teach that in the first semester of business school?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But lying about your product and/or your competitor 's product is so much easier than actually improving your product .
Do n't they teach that in the first semester of business school ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But lying about your product and/or your competitor's product is so much easier than actually improving your product.
Don't they teach that in the first semester of business school?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28707289</id>
	<title>Re:Individual Responsibility</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247690640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole point of forming a corporation is to create an entity with separate rights and liabilities from those of the people working there.</p><p>To hold individuals responsible for their actions <strong>on behalf of the corporation</strong> -- that is actions that they are not performing as individuals (think corporate guarantee vs personal guarantee) -- would be a massive change in the structure of the business world.  Why don't people get this?</p><p><strong>Absolution from individual responsibility is the whole point of incorporation</strong>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole point of forming a corporation is to create an entity with separate rights and liabilities from those of the people working there.To hold individuals responsible for their actions on behalf of the corporation -- that is actions that they are not performing as individuals ( think corporate guarantee vs personal guarantee ) -- would be a massive change in the structure of the business world .
Why do n't people get this ? Absolution from individual responsibility is the whole point of incorporation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole point of forming a corporation is to create an entity with separate rights and liabilities from those of the people working there.To hold individuals responsible for their actions on behalf of the corporation -- that is actions that they are not performing as individuals (think corporate guarantee vs personal guarantee) -- would be a massive change in the structure of the business world.
Why don't people get this?Absolution from individual responsibility is the whole point of incorporation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704229</id>
	<title>What's the problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247676960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is called marketing, or rather guerrilla marketing and there's nothing wrong with it.  If they're service is false (i.e. doesn't actually work or is fraudulent) then I guess it would be false advertising.<br>But doing this sort of marketing isn't really illegal now is it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is called marketing , or rather guerrilla marketing and there 's nothing wrong with it .
If they 're service is false ( i.e .
does n't actually work or is fraudulent ) then I guess it would be false advertising.But doing this sort of marketing is n't really illegal now is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is called marketing, or rather guerrilla marketing and there's nothing wrong with it.
If they're service is false (i.e.
doesn't actually work or is fraudulent) then I guess it would be false advertising.But doing this sort of marketing isn't really illegal now is it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703913</id>
	<title>Re:Like phone sex with fat ugly chicks or even dud</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247675280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your subject line is totally incorrect. I know a woman with the sweetest, sexiest voice you ever heard, and a pretty good body, but her face - AAAAAGH!</p><p>Sex with her in the dark is GREAT. If you're having phone "sex" it doesn't matter what she looks like, only what she sounds like.</p><p>Fake reviews and astroturfing are nothing like that. It's more like the <i>My Name Is Earl</i> episode where "Patty the Daytime Hooker" uses Joy's picture in her newspaper ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your subject line is totally incorrect .
I know a woman with the sweetest , sexiest voice you ever heard , and a pretty good body , but her face - AAAAAGH ! Sex with her in the dark is GREAT .
If you 're having phone " sex " it does n't matter what she looks like , only what she sounds like.Fake reviews and astroturfing are nothing like that .
It 's more like the My Name Is Earl episode where " Patty the Daytime Hooker " uses Joy 's picture in her newspaper ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your subject line is totally incorrect.
I know a woman with the sweetest, sexiest voice you ever heard, and a pretty good body, but her face - AAAAAGH!Sex with her in the dark is GREAT.
If you're having phone "sex" it doesn't matter what she looks like, only what she sounds like.Fake reviews and astroturfing are nothing like that.
It's more like the My Name Is Earl episode where "Patty the Daytime Hooker" uses Joy's picture in her newspaper ads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705479</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shills</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1247682480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It doesn't have to be an "all or nothing" thing either. There are many free/open source programs available on the Windows platform as well, its just that most users aren't as much aware of them because free/open source projects do not generally have the marketing and advertising budget of Microsoft or other big vendors. In fact, about the only Microsoft product that I use besides the OS itself is Visual Studio; which I <i>really</i> wish that Microsoft would offer in a usable basic single-developer version for free (and yes I do know about the express editions, but no addon support is a deal breaker).</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't have to be an " all or nothing " thing either .
There are many free/open source programs available on the Windows platform as well , its just that most users are n't as much aware of them because free/open source projects do not generally have the marketing and advertising budget of Microsoft or other big vendors .
In fact , about the only Microsoft product that I use besides the OS itself is Visual Studio ; which I really wish that Microsoft would offer in a usable basic single-developer version for free ( and yes I do know about the express editions , but no addon support is a deal breaker ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't have to be an "all or nothing" thing either.
There are many free/open source programs available on the Windows platform as well, its just that most users aren't as much aware of them because free/open source projects do not generally have the marketing and advertising budget of Microsoft or other big vendors.
In fact, about the only Microsoft product that I use besides the OS itself is Visual Studio; which I really wish that Microsoft would offer in a usable basic single-developer version for free (and yes I do know about the express editions, but no addon support is a deal breaker).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703491</id>
	<title>Not the first!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247672640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sony got caught doing this a while back:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4741259.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4741259.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]</p><p>The link is to the BBC coverage of the California court decision.<br>I found out about it after reading a Slashdot post panning one of the movies which was pushed this way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sony got caught doing this a while back :         http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4741259.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] The link is to the BBC coverage of the California court decision.I found out about it after reading a Slashdot post panning one of the movies which was pushed this way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sony got caught doing this a while back:
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4741259.stm [bbc.co.uk]The link is to the BBC coverage of the California court decision.I found out about it after reading a Slashdot post panning one of the movies which was pushed this way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704063</id>
	<title>Re:Individual Responsibility</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1247676120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because as an individual your job depends on if you comply or not; you have been coerced.  Personally I don't think people should be coerced into doing bad things, so I'm totaly fine with the company taking the hit and the employees "getting off."</p><p><i>If we held individuals responsible, then individuals would stand-up to the corporations and say no. </i></p><p>And said individuals would be promptly fired, and someone that really needs a job (especially now) will take their place.  You can't as an individual employee stand up to your employer, unfortunately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because as an individual your job depends on if you comply or not ; you have been coerced .
Personally I do n't think people should be coerced into doing bad things , so I 'm totaly fine with the company taking the hit and the employees " getting off .
" If we held individuals responsible , then individuals would stand-up to the corporations and say no .
And said individuals would be promptly fired , and someone that really needs a job ( especially now ) will take their place .
You ca n't as an individual employee stand up to your employer , unfortunately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because as an individual your job depends on if you comply or not; you have been coerced.
Personally I don't think people should be coerced into doing bad things, so I'm totaly fine with the company taking the hit and the employees "getting off.
"If we held individuals responsible, then individuals would stand-up to the corporations and say no.
And said individuals would be promptly fired, and someone that really needs a job (especially now) will take their place.
You can't as an individual employee stand up to your employer, unfortunately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704009</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shills</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247675880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that you assume anyone here that actually LIKES MS' product (like me) is automatically a shill.  I'm not a shill, I'm a person that was exteremly disapointed when I jumped to Linux, and thus jumped back.  My Linux experience actually turned around my opinion of MS software.  It was very much a case of "the grass is greener on the other side," only to find that not only wasn't it any more green, there were quite a few brown patches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that you assume anyone here that actually LIKES MS ' product ( like me ) is automatically a shill .
I 'm not a shill , I 'm a person that was exteremly disapointed when I jumped to Linux , and thus jumped back .
My Linux experience actually turned around my opinion of MS software .
It was very much a case of " the grass is greener on the other side , " only to find that not only was n't it any more green , there were quite a few brown patches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that you assume anyone here that actually LIKES MS' product (like me) is automatically a shill.
I'm not a shill, I'm a person that was exteremly disapointed when I jumped to Linux, and thus jumped back.
My Linux experience actually turned around my opinion of MS software.
It was very much a case of "the grass is greener on the other side," only to find that not only wasn't it any more green, there were quite a few brown patches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704107</id>
	<title>Memo's and illegal crap</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1247676300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Haven't companies learned by now that if you are going to instruct your people to do shady/illegal stuff that you should NOT put it in a memo.  Just go by word of mouth "hey bob, make some fake posts"....dumb asses<br> <br>

BTW I find politicians a bit hypocritical.  In politics the tech writers will write a nice constituant letter about their politician.  They will then give it to a loyal constituant and ask them to sign it.  So the constituant never wrote the words, never had the experience, but because they like the politician they will put their name to it...and this makes it 100\% perfectly legal.  So the next time you see grandma who says her politician is the second coming of christ just realize the words/experience may have come from some paid writer and grandma just signed her name to it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have n't companies learned by now that if you are going to instruct your people to do shady/illegal stuff that you should NOT put it in a memo .
Just go by word of mouth " hey bob , make some fake posts " ....dumb asses BTW I find politicians a bit hypocritical .
In politics the tech writers will write a nice constituant letter about their politician .
They will then give it to a loyal constituant and ask them to sign it .
So the constituant never wrote the words , never had the experience , but because they like the politician they will put their name to it...and this makes it 100 \ % perfectly legal .
So the next time you see grandma who says her politician is the second coming of christ just realize the words/experience may have come from some paid writer and grandma just signed her name to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haven't companies learned by now that if you are going to instruct your people to do shady/illegal stuff that you should NOT put it in a memo.
Just go by word of mouth "hey bob, make some fake posts"....dumb asses 

BTW I find politicians a bit hypocritical.
In politics the tech writers will write a nice constituant letter about their politician.
They will then give it to a loyal constituant and ask them to sign it.
So the constituant never wrote the words, never had the experience, but because they like the politician they will put their name to it...and this makes it 100\% perfectly legal.
So the next time you see grandma who says her politician is the second coming of christ just realize the words/experience may have come from some paid writer and grandma just signed her name to it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704685</id>
	<title>Re:Excuse me, but what is wrong with this?</title>
	<author>DriedClexler</author>
	<datestamp>1247679300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Do believe that went some celebrity appears on TV for a product that they really use it?</p></div><p>Good point.  Somehow, we've got to the point where it's illegal to say,</p><p>"I'm a celebrity, this product is good" (without mentioning you were paid to say so)</p><p>but not,</p><p>"I'm an average person, this product is good". (without mentioning you were paid to say so)</p><p>WTF, seriously?  If the government is really concerned about paid fake endorsements, they have MUCH bigger fish to fry than some small-time cosmetics company.  Yet somehow the small-time ones are the only ones that will be prosecuted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do believe that went some celebrity appears on TV for a product that they really use it ? Good point .
Somehow , we 've got to the point where it 's illegal to say , " I 'm a celebrity , this product is good " ( without mentioning you were paid to say so ) but not , " I 'm an average person , this product is good " .
( without mentioning you were paid to say so ) WTF , seriously ?
If the government is really concerned about paid fake endorsements , they have MUCH bigger fish to fry than some small-time cosmetics company .
Yet somehow the small-time ones are the only ones that will be prosecuted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do believe that went some celebrity appears on TV for a product that they really use it?Good point.
Somehow, we've got to the point where it's illegal to say,"I'm a celebrity, this product is good" (without mentioning you were paid to say so)but not,"I'm an average person, this product is good".
(without mentioning you were paid to say so)WTF, seriously?
If the government is really concerned about paid fake endorsements, they have MUCH bigger fish to fry than some small-time cosmetics company.
Yet somehow the small-time ones are the only ones that will be prosecuted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703749</id>
	<title>Re:why "to the State of New York" ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247674320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The State of New York was the party harmed, therefore it gets the money.  When you commit a crime, you're charged for the harm to the country/state/county/municipality by your disruptive actions, not for the harm to the victim of your crime.   Michigan/American consumers, suckers, and "all" other internet consumers have recourse through the civil court system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The State of New York was the party harmed , therefore it gets the money .
When you commit a crime , you 're charged for the harm to the country/state/county/municipality by your disruptive actions , not for the harm to the victim of your crime .
Michigan/American consumers , suckers , and " all " other internet consumers have recourse through the civil court system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The State of New York was the party harmed, therefore it gets the money.
When you commit a crime, you're charged for the harm to the country/state/county/municipality by your disruptive actions, not for the harm to the victim of your crime.
Michigan/American consumers, suckers, and "all" other internet consumers have recourse through the civil court system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703511</id>
	<title>In other related news</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1247672760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lifestyle Lift Revenue went up by 300K last month...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lifestyle Lift Revenue went up by 300K last month.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lifestyle Lift Revenue went up by 300K last month...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703593</id>
	<title>Re:legal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247673300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know the legal term, but this seems like fraud and misrepresentation. There are restrictions on how a company can advertise. For instance they cannot claim in commercials that person X endorses the product if that person doesn't actually agree to it. They cannot make unsubstantiated or totally erroneous claims.<br> <br>

I think the law takes a dim view of trying to circumvent these advertising laws by pretending to be someone else and delivering the same message.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know the legal term , but this seems like fraud and misrepresentation .
There are restrictions on how a company can advertise .
For instance they can not claim in commercials that person X endorses the product if that person does n't actually agree to it .
They can not make unsubstantiated or totally erroneous claims .
I think the law takes a dim view of trying to circumvent these advertising laws by pretending to be someone else and delivering the same message .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know the legal term, but this seems like fraud and misrepresentation.
There are restrictions on how a company can advertise.
For instance they cannot claim in commercials that person X endorses the product if that person doesn't actually agree to it.
They cannot make unsubstantiated or totally erroneous claims.
I think the law takes a dim view of trying to circumvent these advertising laws by pretending to be someone else and delivering the same message.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703561</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shills</title>
	<author>ciderVisor</author>
	<datestamp>1247673180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leave us alone !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leave us alone !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leave us alone !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703373</id>
	<title>$300,000 that's all?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247671980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a small price to pay.. not even close to the cost of a decent condo.  Cost of doing business, as they say...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a small price to pay.. not even close to the cost of a decent condo .
Cost of doing business , as they say.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a small price to pay.. not even close to the cost of a decent condo.
Cost of doing business, as they say...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704283</id>
	<title>Re:Individual Responsibility</title>
	<author>Thaelon</author>
	<datestamp>1247677200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why?</p><p>If they fined the individuals responsible for the decisions, then they might actually stop doing shit this reprehensible.</p><p>A corporation doesn't really exist.  It's comprised of individual decision makers who should be held accountable for their decisions just as non-corporate citizens.</p><p>And I mean both, those in charge <em>and</em> those responsible for the actual actions.  If you put the repercussions on <em>both</em> then shit like this would occur a lot less frequently, don't you think?</p><p>I'm sick and tired in this day and age of everybody shirking as much personal responsibility as possible.  It is as disgusting and as immoral as lying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ? If they fined the individuals responsible for the decisions , then they might actually stop doing shit this reprehensible.A corporation does n't really exist .
It 's comprised of individual decision makers who should be held accountable for their decisions just as non-corporate citizens.And I mean both , those in charge and those responsible for the actual actions .
If you put the repercussions on both then shit like this would occur a lot less frequently , do n't you think ? I 'm sick and tired in this day and age of everybody shirking as much personal responsibility as possible .
It is as disgusting and as immoral as lying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why?If they fined the individuals responsible for the decisions, then they might actually stop doing shit this reprehensible.A corporation doesn't really exist.
It's comprised of individual decision makers who should be held accountable for their decisions just as non-corporate citizens.And I mean both, those in charge and those responsible for the actual actions.
If you put the repercussions on both then shit like this would occur a lot less frequently, don't you think?I'm sick and tired in this day and age of everybody shirking as much personal responsibility as possible.
It is as disgusting and as immoral as lying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703387</id>
	<title>So?</title>
	<author>cdrudge</author>
	<datestamp>1247672040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Marketing department tells lies about their product.  News at 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Marketing department tells lies about their product .
News at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Marketing department tells lies about their product.
News at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704441</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shills</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247678040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem is that you shill shill shilly shill LIKES MS' product (like me) is automatically a shill.  I'm a shill, I'm a shill shill shill Linux, and thus more shill.  My shill experience actually turned around my opinion of MS software.  It was very much a case of "shill shill shill," only to find that not only wasn't it any more shilly, there were quite a few shill patches.</p></div><p>Fixed that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that you shill shill shilly shill LIKES MS ' product ( like me ) is automatically a shill .
I 'm a shill , I 'm a shill shill shill Linux , and thus more shill .
My shill experience actually turned around my opinion of MS software .
It was very much a case of " shill shill shill , " only to find that not only was n't it any more shilly , there were quite a few shill patches.Fixed that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that you shill shill shilly shill LIKES MS' product (like me) is automatically a shill.
I'm a shill, I'm a shill shill shill Linux, and thus more shill.
My shill experience actually turned around my opinion of MS software.
It was very much a case of "shill shill shill," only to find that not only wasn't it any more shilly, there were quite a few shill patches.Fixed that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28710515</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>masonc</author>
	<datestamp>1247663100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't you understand what a shill is?<br>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<br>"A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage others unaware of the set-up to purchase said goods or services or support the political group's ideological claims. Shills are often employed by confidence artists. The term plant is also used."<br>Shills in marketing: See also: Astroturfing</p><p>It is subterfuge. There's a huge difference between puffery, obviously overstating your values, and pretending to be a dispassionate third party in order to trick people. We know marketing overstates the product, that's built in to our reactions, but we tend to trust impartial thrid party recommendations. Everyone in marketing knows it is wrong to cross that line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you understand what a shill is ? From Wikipedia , the free encyclopedia " A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group , who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer .
The intention of the shill is , using crowd psychology , to encourage others unaware of the set-up to purchase said goods or services or support the political group 's ideological claims .
Shills are often employed by confidence artists .
The term plant is also used .
" Shills in marketing : See also : AstroturfingIt is subterfuge .
There 's a huge difference between puffery , obviously overstating your values , and pretending to be a dispassionate third party in order to trick people .
We know marketing overstates the product , that 's built in to our reactions , but we tend to trust impartial thrid party recommendations .
Everyone in marketing knows it is wrong to cross that line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you understand what a shill is?From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer.
The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage others unaware of the set-up to purchase said goods or services or support the political group's ideological claims.
Shills are often employed by confidence artists.
The term plant is also used.
"Shills in marketing: See also: AstroturfingIt is subterfuge.
There's a huge difference between puffery, obviously overstating your values, and pretending to be a dispassionate third party in order to trick people.
We know marketing overstates the product, that's built in to our reactions, but we tend to trust impartial thrid party recommendations.
Everyone in marketing knows it is wrong to cross that line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703409</id>
	<title>Like phone sex with fat ugly chicks or even dudes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247672160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But I have to credit Lifestyle Lift with the trustworthiness needed to at least make their employees wear skirts and wigs.</p><p>Just goes to show what a good company they are. And on another note, I found my lifestyle lift to be a quite effective alternative to surgery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But I have to credit Lifestyle Lift with the trustworthiness needed to at least make their employees wear skirts and wigs.Just goes to show what a good company they are .
And on another note , I found my lifestyle lift to be a quite effective alternative to surgery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I have to credit Lifestyle Lift with the trustworthiness needed to at least make their employees wear skirts and wigs.Just goes to show what a good company they are.
And on another note, I found my lifestyle lift to be a quite effective alternative to surgery.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704227</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shills</title>
	<author>GreatBunzinni</author>
	<datestamp>1247676960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More to the point, it sure clears up that controversy surrounding wikipedia paid edits, which some wikipedia editors tried to push a while ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More to the point , it sure clears up that controversy surrounding wikipedia paid edits , which some wikipedia editors tried to push a while ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More to the point, it sure clears up that controversy surrounding wikipedia paid edits, which some wikipedia editors tried to push a while ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705711</id>
	<title>Re:So they couldn't shout across the office?</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1247683380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They didn't fine them enough so they will still be in business and will use more deniable means to do the exact same crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did n't fine them enough so they will still be in business and will use more deniable means to do the exact same crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They didn't fine them enough so they will still be in business and will use more deniable means to do the exact same crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705725</id>
	<title>Re:Excuse me, but what is wrong with this?</title>
	<author>anegg</author>
	<datestamp>1247683440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Offtopic:
I really liked watching Wilford Brimley's character get the crap kicked out of him by Tom Cruise's character in "The Firm."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Offtopic : I really liked watching Wilford Brimley 's character get the crap kicked out of him by Tom Cruise 's character in " The Firm .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Offtopic:
I really liked watching Wilford Brimley's character get the crap kicked out of him by Tom Cruise's character in "The Firm.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706581</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shills</title>
	<author>Super\_Z</author>
	<datestamp>1247687460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whether people are astroturfing or simply have a bias or positive opinion is of course extremely hard to tell. What is striking is the sheer amount of people that has a positive bias towards Microsoft that has entered this forum these last years.</p><p>What is even more striking is the dearth of people extolling products competing with Microsoft.</p><p>Given the amount of "I use Linux, but Bing is really good" posts - where are the Yahoo fanboys posting their views?
Likewise - where are the happy Flex/Flash users when lots of posts thinks Silverlight rocks? Where are the Java people when tons of posts extols<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net?. Where the Lotus Notes people when tons of people extols Exchange? The PS3 seems to be a noncontender when Xbox 360 is discussed.</p><p>Why are the posts pointing out competitors products either drowning or non-existant? There are no raving hordes of Apple fanboys around here. There sure seems to be loads of the Microsoft kind.</p><p>Heck - the grandparent has as of writing recieved 3 trolls and one flamebait. I'm sure this post will be treated likewise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether people are astroturfing or simply have a bias or positive opinion is of course extremely hard to tell .
What is striking is the sheer amount of people that has a positive bias towards Microsoft that has entered this forum these last years.What is even more striking is the dearth of people extolling products competing with Microsoft.Given the amount of " I use Linux , but Bing is really good " posts - where are the Yahoo fanboys posting their views ?
Likewise - where are the happy Flex/Flash users when lots of posts thinks Silverlight rocks ?
Where are the Java people when tons of posts extols .Net ? .
Where the Lotus Notes people when tons of people extols Exchange ?
The PS3 seems to be a noncontender when Xbox 360 is discussed.Why are the posts pointing out competitors products either drowning or non-existant ?
There are no raving hordes of Apple fanboys around here .
There sure seems to be loads of the Microsoft kind.Heck - the grandparent has as of writing recieved 3 trolls and one flamebait .
I 'm sure this post will be treated likewise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether people are astroturfing or simply have a bias or positive opinion is of course extremely hard to tell.
What is striking is the sheer amount of people that has a positive bias towards Microsoft that has entered this forum these last years.What is even more striking is the dearth of people extolling products competing with Microsoft.Given the amount of "I use Linux, but Bing is really good" posts - where are the Yahoo fanboys posting their views?
Likewise - where are the happy Flex/Flash users when lots of posts thinks Silverlight rocks?
Where are the Java people when tons of posts extols .Net?.
Where the Lotus Notes people when tons of people extols Exchange?
The PS3 seems to be a noncontender when Xbox 360 is discussed.Why are the posts pointing out competitors products either drowning or non-existant?
There are no raving hordes of Apple fanboys around here.
There sure seems to be loads of the Microsoft kind.Heck - the grandparent has as of writing recieved 3 trolls and one flamebait.
I'm sure this post will be treated likewise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705251</id>
	<title>Might this spell the end</title>
	<author>nightfire-unique</author>
	<datestamp>1247681640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Might this spell the end of the Israeli lobby?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Might this spell the end of the Israeli lobby ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Might this spell the end of the Israeli lobby?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704183</id>
	<title>Re:Individual Responsibility</title>
	<author>socrplayr813</author>
	<datestamp>1247676720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The people who were giving the orders will no doubt be held responsible in some way by the corporation.  True, it'll likely be more because they got caught than because of what they did, but you can be sure they'll hear about it.  Unless it was coming from the highest levels of the company, in which case the fine is already correctly targeting them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The people who were giving the orders will no doubt be held responsible in some way by the corporation .
True , it 'll likely be more because they got caught than because of what they did , but you can be sure they 'll hear about it .
Unless it was coming from the highest levels of the company , in which case the fine is already correctly targeting them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people who were giving the orders will no doubt be held responsible in some way by the corporation.
True, it'll likely be more because they got caught than because of what they did, but you can be sure they'll hear about it.
Unless it was coming from the highest levels of the company, in which case the fine is already correctly targeting them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705879</id>
	<title>Re:Excuse me, but what is wrong with this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247684040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Every single review someone takes the time to write is either telling you how great something is or how bad.  Either way, someone was so motivated as to write the review to "help" others to make the "right" decision.  I wouldn't trust any of them, especially when it is not tied to anyone's real identity.</p></div><p>Sorry I choose not to have any faith in your comment as I believe you are a shill and paid to post this article.<br>Besides, I'm sure "cdrguru" is not your real identity and I just can't see your motivation in spending the time to write this post.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every single review someone takes the time to write is either telling you how great something is or how bad .
Either way , someone was so motivated as to write the review to " help " others to make the " right " decision .
I would n't trust any of them , especially when it is not tied to anyone 's real identity.Sorry I choose not to have any faith in your comment as I believe you are a shill and paid to post this article.Besides , I 'm sure " cdrguru " is not your real identity and I just ca n't see your motivation in spending the time to write this post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every single review someone takes the time to write is either telling you how great something is or how bad.
Either way, someone was so motivated as to write the review to "help" others to make the "right" decision.
I wouldn't trust any of them, especially when it is not tied to anyone's real identity.Sorry I choose not to have any faith in your comment as I believe you are a shill and paid to post this article.Besides, I'm sure "cdrguru" is not your real identity and I just can't see your motivation in spending the time to write this post.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705969</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shills</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247684340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Care to point out these shills? It seems to me that any person praising a Microsoft product is automatically accused of being a shill (and only it takes a product by Microsoft; I don't think I've ever read MS-all-together being praised here without it being an obvious troll).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Care to point out these shills ?
It seems to me that any person praising a Microsoft product is automatically accused of being a shill ( and only it takes a product by Microsoft ; I do n't think I 've ever read MS-all-together being praised here without it being an obvious troll ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Care to point out these shills?
It seems to me that any person praising a Microsoft product is automatically accused of being a shill (and only it takes a product by Microsoft; I don't think I've ever read MS-all-together being praised here without it being an obvious troll).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703547</id>
	<title>In other words...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247673000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a company, you should be absolutely fine, unless you are so incredibly stupid as to put instructions like these down in writing, and making them so explicit that they cannot be read or weaseled out of in any conceivable way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a company , you should be absolutely fine , unless you are so incredibly stupid as to put instructions like these down in writing , and making them so explicit that they can not be read or weaseled out of in any conceivable way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a company, you should be absolutely fine, unless you are so incredibly stupid as to put instructions like these down in writing, and making them so explicit that they cannot be read or weaseled out of in any conceivable way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706149</id>
	<title>Re:What I really want to know</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247685300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>What I really want to know is this: does this "anti-astroturfing" law apply to "Team Windows"? </i>
</p><p>Certainly.  However, the law requires more evidence than "does not hate Microsoft, therefore is an astroturfer".</p></div><p>
That is usually the main indicator.  </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I really want to know is this : does this " anti-astroturfing " law apply to " Team Windows " ?
Certainly. However , the law requires more evidence than " does not hate Microsoft , therefore is an astroturfer " .
That is usually the main indicator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> What I really want to know is this: does this "anti-astroturfing" law apply to "Team Windows"?
Certainly.  However, the law requires more evidence than "does not hate Microsoft, therefore is an astroturfer".
That is usually the main indicator.  
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706027</id>
	<title>Not enough! Send them to Bagram !</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1247684640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(Bagram is the forgotten guantanamo)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Bagram is the forgotten guantanamo )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Bagram is the forgotten guantanamo)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704313</id>
	<title>Re:why "to the State of New York" ?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247677380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm assuming you're British. I wish we had an ASA here, but unfortunately there's nothing an US customer can do about false advertising. The company's competetion has to file the complaint here, the customer has no recourse unless it's out and out fraud. And even then, if you file a complaint with the BBB you can't file a complaint with the AG (at least here in Illinois).</p><p>But then, we have the best legislators money can buy. And corporations have LOTS of money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm assuming you 're British .
I wish we had an ASA here , but unfortunately there 's nothing an US customer can do about false advertising .
The company 's competetion has to file the complaint here , the customer has no recourse unless it 's out and out fraud .
And even then , if you file a complaint with the BBB you ca n't file a complaint with the AG ( at least here in Illinois ) .But then , we have the best legislators money can buy .
And corporations have LOTS of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm assuming you're British.
I wish we had an ASA here, but unfortunately there's nothing an US customer can do about false advertising.
The company's competetion has to file the complaint here, the customer has no recourse unless it's out and out fraud.
And even then, if you file a complaint with the BBB you can't file a complaint with the AG (at least here in Illinois).But then, we have the best legislators money can buy.
And corporations have LOTS of money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703555</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704259</id>
	<title>That name again</title>
	<author>Spatial</author>
	<datestamp>1247677080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Lifestyle Lift, a cosmetic surgery company [...] Lifestyle Lift [...] Lifestyle Lift [...] Lifestyle Lift [...] Lifestyle Lift. [...] Lifestyle Lift [...] Lifestyle Lift. [...] Lifestyle Lift [...] Lifestyle Lift."</p></div><p>Just in case you didn't catch it the first time!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lifestyle Lift , a cosmetic surgery company [ ... ] Lifestyle Lift [ ... ] Lifestyle Lift [ ... ] Lifestyle Lift [ ... ] Lifestyle Lift .
[ ... ] Lifestyle Lift [ ... ] Lifestyle Lift .
[ ... ] Lifestyle Lift [ ... ] Lifestyle Lift .
" Just in case you did n't catch it the first time !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lifestyle Lift, a cosmetic surgery company [...] Lifestyle Lift [...] Lifestyle Lift [...] Lifestyle Lift [...] Lifestyle Lift.
[...] Lifestyle Lift [...] Lifestyle Lift.
[...] Lifestyle Lift [...] Lifestyle Lift.
"Just in case you didn't catch it the first time!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703303</id>
	<title>So they couldn't shout across the office?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247671680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>We all know this shit goes on, all the time, but to email about it? they deserve more than 300k fine..

Will it stop this from happening? I doubt it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know this shit goes on , all the time , but to email about it ?
they deserve more than 300k fine. . Will it stop this from happening ?
I doubt it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know this shit goes on, all the time, but to email about it?
they deserve more than 300k fine..

Will it stop this from happening?
I doubt it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703809</id>
	<title>Re:Individual Responsibility</title>
	<author>kevinNCSU</author>
	<datestamp>1247674620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If we held individuals responsible, then individuals would stand-up to the corporations and say no.  But so long as they can clear their conscience by blaming their boss, and on up the chain, these things will happen.</p></div><p>If you work at such a morally righteous company then good for you. However, many corporations would have a field day with the ability to ask employees to do illicit activities without any threat of it falling back on the company itself.  If you "stood up" to the company as you suggest you'd likely find negative consequences to your employment/advancement.</p><p>The individuals stood little to nothing to gain.  It's the corporate entity that is involved in the illegal actions.  Could you make a dummy corporation with a boss and do the same thing to "protect" yourself?  Sure thing, but the $300,000 fine is going to come to your boss and dummy corporation (ie: you) so what would be the point?</p><p>I think it's also important to make the distinction that their violating laws pertaining to the legal operation a corporation and therefore the corporation is fined.  Had they been told to go murder someone, then clearly the individuals would be held responsible as well, not just the corporate entity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we held individuals responsible , then individuals would stand-up to the corporations and say no .
But so long as they can clear their conscience by blaming their boss , and on up the chain , these things will happen.If you work at such a morally righteous company then good for you .
However , many corporations would have a field day with the ability to ask employees to do illicit activities without any threat of it falling back on the company itself .
If you " stood up " to the company as you suggest you 'd likely find negative consequences to your employment/advancement.The individuals stood little to nothing to gain .
It 's the corporate entity that is involved in the illegal actions .
Could you make a dummy corporation with a boss and do the same thing to " protect " yourself ?
Sure thing , but the $ 300,000 fine is going to come to your boss and dummy corporation ( ie : you ) so what would be the point ? I think it 's also important to make the distinction that their violating laws pertaining to the legal operation a corporation and therefore the corporation is fined .
Had they been told to go murder someone , then clearly the individuals would be held responsible as well , not just the corporate entity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we held individuals responsible, then individuals would stand-up to the corporations and say no.
But so long as they can clear their conscience by blaming their boss, and on up the chain, these things will happen.If you work at such a morally righteous company then good for you.
However, many corporations would have a field day with the ability to ask employees to do illicit activities without any threat of it falling back on the company itself.
If you "stood up" to the company as you suggest you'd likely find negative consequences to your employment/advancement.The individuals stood little to nothing to gain.
It's the corporate entity that is involved in the illegal actions.
Could you make a dummy corporation with a boss and do the same thing to "protect" yourself?
Sure thing, but the $300,000 fine is going to come to your boss and dummy corporation (ie: you) so what would be the point?I think it's also important to make the distinction that their violating laws pertaining to the legal operation a corporation and therefore the corporation is fined.
Had they been told to go murder someone, then clearly the individuals would be held responsible as well, not just the corporate entity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704561</id>
	<title>Re:Excuse me, but what is wrong with this?</title>
	<author>Nerdfest</author>
	<datestamp>1247678700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not all advertising is lying. It can purely be describing your product in objective terms to your audience. This is actually even done on occasion, although it does seem to be getting more rare.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not all advertising is lying .
It can purely be describing your product in objective terms to your audience .
This is actually even done on occasion , although it does seem to be getting more rare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not all advertising is lying.
It can purely be describing your product in objective terms to your audience.
This is actually even done on occasion, although it does seem to be getting more rare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704011</id>
	<title>Great! So what's next?</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1247675880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now they can go after the entire online porn industry? I have a feeling that it's all a bunch of sites owned by one person laughing demonically and getting you to click on links that never ever get you anywhe...</p><p>Hmmm, no, I've never done that. I don't know about those sites! Really!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now they can go after the entire online porn industry ?
I have a feeling that it 's all a bunch of sites owned by one person laughing demonically and getting you to click on links that never ever get you anywhe...Hmmm , no , I 've never done that .
I do n't know about those sites !
Really !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now they can go after the entire online porn industry?
I have a feeling that it's all a bunch of sites owned by one person laughing demonically and getting you to click on links that never ever get you anywhe...Hmmm, no, I've never done that.
I don't know about those sites!
Really!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705097</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>MaskedSlacker</author>
	<datestamp>1247681100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>News yes.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. relevant?  Not so much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>News yes .
/. relevant ?
Not so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>News yes.
/. relevant?
Not so much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703555</id>
	<title>why "to the State of New York" ?</title>
	<author>panthroman</author>
	<datestamp>1247673120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The company gets a punitive fine, okay.  But who gets the money?</p><p>A Michigan-based company lies on the internet, so giving the money to the State of New York doesn't make sense to me.  I'm having a tough time specifying just which group was wronged by the company -- Michigan consumers, American consumers, all consumers who have access to the internet, suckers?  Wouldn't the money be more appropriately given to the FTC?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The company gets a punitive fine , okay .
But who gets the money ? A Michigan-based company lies on the internet , so giving the money to the State of New York does n't make sense to me .
I 'm having a tough time specifying just which group was wronged by the company -- Michigan consumers , American consumers , all consumers who have access to the internet , suckers ?
Would n't the money be more appropriately given to the FTC ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The company gets a punitive fine, okay.
But who gets the money?A Michigan-based company lies on the internet, so giving the money to the State of New York doesn't make sense to me.
I'm having a tough time specifying just which group was wronged by the company -- Michigan consumers, American consumers, all consumers who have access to the internet, suckers?
Wouldn't the money be more appropriately given to the FTC?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28711717</id>
	<title>Re:Excuse me, but what is wrong with this?</title>
	<author>SL Baur</author>
	<datestamp>1247671740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>OK, they are lying. Everybody lies. All advertising is lying in one form or another. Do believe that went some celebrity appears on TV for a product that they really use it? Or know anything about it other than what the teleprompter is telling them to say?</p></div><p>Hmmm, someone more cynical than I am.</p><p>Advertising reducing prices for consumers has been proven experimentally.  I was a participant in some experiements in college as a guinea pig.</p><p>I also am not afraid to tell people about products that I have had good experiences with.</p><p>One possible case where you might find my motives dubious occurred in the late 1980s when I was working for a defense contractor, my email address clearly identified that I working in the defense part of the company and part of my job description at the time was to be the first person to get his hands on new Ada compilers and put them through my not-so-loving tests.  The technology of the time was fairly weak and the US DOD had not yet settled on specifying specific Ada compilers for projects.</p><p>The best of the sorry lot was Verdix Ada (VADS), that had deficiencies which, no matter how often we reported them to the vendor, fell on deaf ears.  One evening, after a particularly rough day at work, I was browsing comp.lang.ada and responded to a request for information regarding Verdix with an absolutely scathing review that peeled paint off walls hundreds of miles away.</p><p>The next day, I received a call at work from a person within Verdix who made me an offer I couldn't refuse (after consultation with my management, of course).  I would be given beta tester status with access to their latest &amp; greatest prior to formal release.  My part of the agreement was to post a retraction and a review on comp.lang.ada should circumstances merit it.</p><p>I tested and did the review and it was one of the easiest reviews I've ever had to write - their newer code was a vast improvement over what I had been working with.  I went on to become a very strong Verdix advocate within the company, though it ended up not making much difference.  Alsys Ada with its political connections (a founder by the lead designer of the winning Ada design context was too strong despite having a weaker overall system) became the official standard.</p><p>Did I sell out and shill?  I don't think so.  Verdix Ada could be an order of magnitude faster compiling code than Alsys.  Did I become corrupted with my special back channel into the company?  I don't know.  I gave special treatment to Omron and Wnn6 as Mr. XEmacs when I was given an "illegal"[1] copy of that software too.</p><p>Afterwards:<br>Verdix (and Alsys) have since gone the way of the dodo, but from the most recent look I've taken at GNAT, it appears to be very strong.  Certainly strong enough that Ada cannot be considered a dead language.</p><p>More is the pity, because Ada the language looks in horror at anything not statically typed and defined within the program.  It's the perfect language for doing safe web development.</p><p>[1]  They had the standard clause in Japanese software that prohibited sale outside of Japan.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , they are lying .
Everybody lies .
All advertising is lying in one form or another .
Do believe that went some celebrity appears on TV for a product that they really use it ?
Or know anything about it other than what the teleprompter is telling them to say ? Hmmm , someone more cynical than I am.Advertising reducing prices for consumers has been proven experimentally .
I was a participant in some experiements in college as a guinea pig.I also am not afraid to tell people about products that I have had good experiences with.One possible case where you might find my motives dubious occurred in the late 1980s when I was working for a defense contractor , my email address clearly identified that I working in the defense part of the company and part of my job description at the time was to be the first person to get his hands on new Ada compilers and put them through my not-so-loving tests .
The technology of the time was fairly weak and the US DOD had not yet settled on specifying specific Ada compilers for projects.The best of the sorry lot was Verdix Ada ( VADS ) , that had deficiencies which , no matter how often we reported them to the vendor , fell on deaf ears .
One evening , after a particularly rough day at work , I was browsing comp.lang.ada and responded to a request for information regarding Verdix with an absolutely scathing review that peeled paint off walls hundreds of miles away.The next day , I received a call at work from a person within Verdix who made me an offer I could n't refuse ( after consultation with my management , of course ) .
I would be given beta tester status with access to their latest &amp; greatest prior to formal release .
My part of the agreement was to post a retraction and a review on comp.lang.ada should circumstances merit it.I tested and did the review and it was one of the easiest reviews I 've ever had to write - their newer code was a vast improvement over what I had been working with .
I went on to become a very strong Verdix advocate within the company , though it ended up not making much difference .
Alsys Ada with its political connections ( a founder by the lead designer of the winning Ada design context was too strong despite having a weaker overall system ) became the official standard.Did I sell out and shill ?
I do n't think so .
Verdix Ada could be an order of magnitude faster compiling code than Alsys .
Did I become corrupted with my special back channel into the company ?
I do n't know .
I gave special treatment to Omron and Wnn6 as Mr. XEmacs when I was given an " illegal " [ 1 ] copy of that software too.Afterwards : Verdix ( and Alsys ) have since gone the way of the dodo , but from the most recent look I 've taken at GNAT , it appears to be very strong .
Certainly strong enough that Ada can not be considered a dead language.More is the pity , because Ada the language looks in horror at anything not statically typed and defined within the program .
It 's the perfect language for doing safe web development .
[ 1 ] They had the standard clause in Japanese software that prohibited sale outside of Japan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, they are lying.
Everybody lies.
All advertising is lying in one form or another.
Do believe that went some celebrity appears on TV for a product that they really use it?
Or know anything about it other than what the teleprompter is telling them to say?Hmmm, someone more cynical than I am.Advertising reducing prices for consumers has been proven experimentally.
I was a participant in some experiements in college as a guinea pig.I also am not afraid to tell people about products that I have had good experiences with.One possible case where you might find my motives dubious occurred in the late 1980s when I was working for a defense contractor, my email address clearly identified that I working in the defense part of the company and part of my job description at the time was to be the first person to get his hands on new Ada compilers and put them through my not-so-loving tests.
The technology of the time was fairly weak and the US DOD had not yet settled on specifying specific Ada compilers for projects.The best of the sorry lot was Verdix Ada (VADS), that had deficiencies which, no matter how often we reported them to the vendor, fell on deaf ears.
One evening, after a particularly rough day at work, I was browsing comp.lang.ada and responded to a request for information regarding Verdix with an absolutely scathing review that peeled paint off walls hundreds of miles away.The next day, I received a call at work from a person within Verdix who made me an offer I couldn't refuse (after consultation with my management, of course).
I would be given beta tester status with access to their latest &amp; greatest prior to formal release.
My part of the agreement was to post a retraction and a review on comp.lang.ada should circumstances merit it.I tested and did the review and it was one of the easiest reviews I've ever had to write - their newer code was a vast improvement over what I had been working with.
I went on to become a very strong Verdix advocate within the company, though it ended up not making much difference.
Alsys Ada with its political connections (a founder by the lead designer of the winning Ada design context was too strong despite having a weaker overall system) became the official standard.Did I sell out and shill?
I don't think so.
Verdix Ada could be an order of magnitude faster compiling code than Alsys.
Did I become corrupted with my special back channel into the company?
I don't know.
I gave special treatment to Omron and Wnn6 as Mr. XEmacs when I was given an "illegal"[1] copy of that software too.Afterwards:Verdix (and Alsys) have since gone the way of the dodo, but from the most recent look I've taken at GNAT, it appears to be very strong.
Certainly strong enough that Ada cannot be considered a dead language.More is the pity, because Ada the language looks in horror at anything not statically typed and defined within the program.
It's the perfect language for doing safe web development.
[1]  They had the standard clause in Japanese software that prohibited sale outside of Japan.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703995</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28708065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28709517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28708673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28714507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28707289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28707791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28711717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28710515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28712119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28708325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_1351204_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_1351204.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703277
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_1351204.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704731
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_1351204.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703511
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_1351204.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704149
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_1351204.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703553
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704511
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706719
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703659
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704573
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_1351204.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704229
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_1351204.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703807
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_1351204.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28708325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704009
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706581
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28708673
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28712119
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704441
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705479
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704641
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706999
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28709517
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704311
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28714507
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705675
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_1351204.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703913
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_1351204.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703619
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_1351204.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703565
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_1351204.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28711717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704685
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_1351204.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28710515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703509
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705097
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703517
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_1351204.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703547
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_1351204.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28705093
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706819
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706149
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_1351204.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703373
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_1351204.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703809
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704283
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28708065
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28707791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28707289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28703935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28706197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_1351204.28704183
</commentlist>
</conversation>
