<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_12_1451201</id>
	<title>Marge Simpson Poses For <em>Playboy</em></title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1255368600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>caffiend666 writes <i>"'<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091009/ap\_on\_en\_ot/us\_playboy\_marge\_simpson">Marge Simpson is posing for <em>Playboy</em> </a>. The magazine is giving the star of <em>The Simpsons</em> the star treatment, complete with a data sheet, an interview and a 2-page centerfold. 'We knew that this would really appeal to the 20-something crowd,' said <em>Playboy</em> spokeswoman Theresa Hennessey.  <em>Playboy</em> even convinced 7-Eleven to carry the magazine in its 1,200 corporate-owned stores, something the company has only done once before in more than 20 years."</i>  Worst issue ever!</htmltext>
<tokenext>caffiend666 writes " 'Marge Simpson is posing for Playboy .
The magazine is giving the star of The Simpsons the star treatment , complete with a data sheet , an interview and a 2-page centerfold .
'We knew that this would really appeal to the 20-something crowd, ' said Playboy spokeswoman Theresa Hennessey .
Playboy even convinced 7-Eleven to carry the magazine in its 1,200 corporate-owned stores , something the company has only done once before in more than 20 years .
" Worst issue ever !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>caffiend666 writes "'Marge Simpson is posing for Playboy .
The magazine is giving the star of The Simpsons the star treatment, complete with a data sheet, an interview and a 2-page centerfold.
'We knew that this would really appeal to the 20-something crowd,' said Playboy spokeswoman Theresa Hennessey.
Playboy even convinced 7-Eleven to carry the magazine in its 1,200 corporate-owned stores, something the company has only done once before in more than 20 years.
"  Worst issue ever!</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721969</id>
	<title>brilliant</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1255375380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of people think this is stupid, but I like the idea.  Here's how to look at it: sure, we all like porn, but <em>who</em> buys Playboy in the era of ubiquitous internet porn?  Not many people, that's who.  Now you hear this story about Marge.  C'mon, non-Playboy-purchasers, you're not telling me this just might make you want to go buy this issue?  <em>I'm</em> sure tempted.  You can get porn anywhere.  Where can you get a physical Marge Simpson centerfold to hang on your office wall?</p><p>This issue will make more money than the previous issue.  And that's why they're doing it.  If they're smart, they'll put something compelling in the issue to keep the new customers intrigued enough to buy the next one even if it doesn't have a gimmick centerfold.  How about part 1 of some kickass serialized SciFi story by an up-and-coming author that no one has heard of?  Maybe some really <em>great</em> port in another part of the issue.  The possibilities are endless.  The point is: this is to get (some) people who haven't spent a dime on Playboy in the last ten years, to take one more (one final?) look at Playboy, and I think it's going to work, to at least <em>some</em> degree of success.  Enough to save the magazine?  Well, everyone thinks the prospects are grim on that, but they've got to at least <em>try.</em>  Kudos to the Playboy team.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of people think this is stupid , but I like the idea .
Here 's how to look at it : sure , we all like porn , but who buys Playboy in the era of ubiquitous internet porn ?
Not many people , that 's who .
Now you hear this story about Marge .
C'mon , non-Playboy-purchasers , you 're not telling me this just might make you want to go buy this issue ?
I 'm sure tempted .
You can get porn anywhere .
Where can you get a physical Marge Simpson centerfold to hang on your office wall ? This issue will make more money than the previous issue .
And that 's why they 're doing it .
If they 're smart , they 'll put something compelling in the issue to keep the new customers intrigued enough to buy the next one even if it does n't have a gimmick centerfold .
How about part 1 of some kickass serialized SciFi story by an up-and-coming author that no one has heard of ?
Maybe some really great port in another part of the issue .
The possibilities are endless .
The point is : this is to get ( some ) people who have n't spent a dime on Playboy in the last ten years , to take one more ( one final ?
) look at Playboy , and I think it 's going to work , to at least some degree of success .
Enough to save the magazine ?
Well , everyone thinks the prospects are grim on that , but they 've got to at least try .
Kudos to the Playboy team .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of people think this is stupid, but I like the idea.
Here's how to look at it: sure, we all like porn, but who buys Playboy in the era of ubiquitous internet porn?
Not many people, that's who.
Now you hear this story about Marge.
C'mon, non-Playboy-purchasers, you're not telling me this just might make you want to go buy this issue?
I'm sure tempted.
You can get porn anywhere.
Where can you get a physical Marge Simpson centerfold to hang on your office wall?This issue will make more money than the previous issue.
And that's why they're doing it.
If they're smart, they'll put something compelling in the issue to keep the new customers intrigued enough to buy the next one even if it doesn't have a gimmick centerfold.
How about part 1 of some kickass serialized SciFi story by an up-and-coming author that no one has heard of?
Maybe some really great port in another part of the issue.
The possibilities are endless.
The point is: this is to get (some) people who haven't spent a dime on Playboy in the last ten years, to take one more (one final?
) look at Playboy, and I think it's going to work, to at least some degree of success.
Enough to save the magazine?
Well, everyone thinks the prospects are grim on that, but they've got to at least try.
Kudos to the Playboy team.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724339</id>
	<title>Re:For crying out loud;</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255342020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1) Cartoons are seldom sexy</p></div><p>Oh, really?  What if we throw a Japanese tentacle monster in the mix?  They won't be able to keep up with demand!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Cartoons are seldom sexyOh , really ?
What if we throw a Japanese tentacle monster in the mix ?
They wo n't be able to keep up with demand !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Cartoons are seldom sexyOh, really?
What if we throw a Japanese tentacle monster in the mix?
They won't be able to keep up with demand!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29729707</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>Fred\_A</author>
	<datestamp>1255429980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I guess I'm in the minority, but I'm going to buy it.  It's a few bucks, it's kinda unique, and why not?</p></div><p>Great, let us know what you think of the other models in that issue... I think they've got the PowerPuff girls, Snow White and Vera from Scooby-Doo.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I 'm in the minority , but I 'm going to buy it .
It 's a few bucks , it 's kinda unique , and why not ? Great , let us know what you think of the other models in that issue... I think they 've got the PowerPuff girls , Snow White and Vera from Scooby-Doo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I'm in the minority, but I'm going to buy it.
It's a few bucks, it's kinda unique, and why not?Great, let us know what you think of the other models in that issue... I think they've got the PowerPuff girls, Snow White and Vera from Scooby-Doo.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721679</id>
	<title>Re:Seems odd . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255374420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, money corrupts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , money corrupts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, money corrupts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29730271</id>
	<title>Re:For crying out loud;</title>
	<author>Vladimir Kornea</author>
	<datestamp>1255437780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>FFS</i> </p></div> </blockquote><p>Do we really need this acronym? FFS</p><p>Oh.</p><p>I see.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FFS Do we really need this acronym ?
FFSOh.I see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> FFS  Do we really need this acronym?
FFSOh.I see.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29734075</id>
	<title>Re:20-something ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255458720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm 26 and have never missed a Simpsons episode since day 1, you insensitive clod!<br>
<br>
Seriously, I have never ever missed a first-airing of a Simpsons episode, including the very first episode (though excluding any of the Tracey Ullman stuff).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm 26 and have never missed a Simpsons episode since day 1 , you insensitive clod !
Seriously , I have never ever missed a first-airing of a Simpsons episode , including the very first episode ( though excluding any of the Tracey Ullman stuff ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm 26 and have never missed a Simpsons episode since day 1, you insensitive clod!
Seriously, I have never ever missed a first-airing of a Simpsons episode, including the very first episode (though excluding any of the Tracey Ullman stuff).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722009</id>
	<title>Com'on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255375560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I expect Lisa or even Maggie. Definitely not Marge!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I expect Lisa or even Maggie .
Definitely not Marge !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I expect Lisa or even Maggie.
Definitely not Marge!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722519</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255377600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(And we get our pr0n on the internet.)</p></div><p>I feel that this is the driving force behind Playboy's decline - the availability of <b>free</b>, easily accessible "gentleman's entertainment" has led us away from such magazines.  The web can host so much more than static images and text.  Furthermore, when I buy a porn magazine I don't expect to find cartoon character centerfolds (and I can get that on the internet too, thank you very much), nor am I aroused in any way by Marge Simpson.  Couldn't Hugh at least pick someone hot?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( And we get our pr0n on the internet .
) I feel that this is the driving force behind Playboy 's decline - the availability of free , easily accessible " gentleman 's entertainment " has led us away from such magazines .
The web can host so much more than static images and text .
Furthermore , when I buy a porn magazine I do n't expect to find cartoon character centerfolds ( and I can get that on the internet too , thank you very much ) , nor am I aroused in any way by Marge Simpson .
Could n't Hugh at least pick someone hot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(And we get our pr0n on the internet.
)I feel that this is the driving force behind Playboy's decline - the availability of free, easily accessible "gentleman's entertainment" has led us away from such magazines.
The web can host so much more than static images and text.
Furthermore, when I buy a porn magazine I don't expect to find cartoon character centerfolds (and I can get that on the internet too, thank you very much), nor am I aroused in any way by Marge Simpson.
Couldn't Hugh at least pick someone hot?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724583</id>
	<title>Re:All centerfolds are "cartoons" anyway</title>
	<author>ozbird</author>
	<datestamp>1255343040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Between air-brushing, filters (the ones that make the entire shot pinkish or blueish), and post-editing, you're no longer looking at a real woman.</p></div></blockquote><p>In many (most? all?) cases, that's true even before the photo shoot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Between air-brushing , filters ( the ones that make the entire shot pinkish or blueish ) , and post-editing , you 're no longer looking at a real woman.In many ( most ?
all ? ) cases , that 's true even before the photo shoot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Between air-brushing, filters (the ones that make the entire shot pinkish or blueish), and post-editing, you're no longer looking at a real woman.In many (most?
all?) cases, that's true even before the photo shoot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723967</id>
	<title>Re:Seems odd . . .</title>
	<author>Apocalypse111</author>
	<datestamp>1255340400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>...Moral Hygiene...</i> <br>So that means she shaves, then?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Moral Hygiene... So that means she shaves , then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Moral Hygiene... So that means she shaves, then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721207</id>
	<title>erotic art</title>
	<author>bugi</author>
	<datestamp>1255372920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The erotic art in PB is often quite good.  It's about time it gets center stage.</p><p>It's about time that PB embraces hentai-like realism.  Their pictorials are usually so far from reality, it's laughable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The erotic art in PB is often quite good .
It 's about time it gets center stage.It 's about time that PB embraces hentai-like realism .
Their pictorials are usually so far from reality , it 's laughable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The erotic art in PB is often quite good.
It's about time it gets center stage.It's about time that PB embraces hentai-like realism.
Their pictorials are usually so far from reality, it's laughable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724131</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255341120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>you're and elitist tosser and you do a pretty good old man rant, though you forgot "get off my lawn"<br> <br>-a 28 year old who's grown up with the Simpson and has no doubt watched the earlier seasons more times than yourself</htmltext>
<tokenext>you 're and elitist tosser and you do a pretty good old man rant , though you forgot " get off my lawn " -a 28 year old who 's grown up with the Simpson and has no doubt watched the earlier seasons more times than yourself</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you're and elitist tosser and you do a pretty good old man rant, though you forgot "get off my lawn" -a 28 year old who's grown up with the Simpson and has no doubt watched the earlier seasons more times than yourself</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721389</id>
	<title>what</title>
	<author>Wilson\_6500</author>
	<datestamp>1255373460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>what</htmltext>
<tokenext>what</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721913</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . . Playboy still exists?</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1255375260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And has a circulation of 2.6 million? I'm amazed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And has a circulation of 2.6 million ?
I 'm amazed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And has a circulation of 2.6 million?
I'm amazed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723283</id>
	<title>Re:20-something ?</title>
	<author>AuMatar</author>
	<datestamp>1255381140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>THat was for the movie launch.  And it was actually a big hit for them, they made a lot of money on that Quik-E-Mart joke.  Probably why they're jumping on this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>THat was for the movie launch .
And it was actually a big hit for them , they made a lot of money on that Quik-E-Mart joke .
Probably why they 're jumping on this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THat was for the movie launch.
And it was actually a big hit for them, they made a lot of money on that Quik-E-Mart joke.
Probably why they're jumping on this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722933</id>
	<title>Re:Next issue...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255379340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about Leela (not my thing) but Amy actually is kind of hot (at times).  Just watch the <i>Teenage Mutant Leela's Hurdles</i> episode where you get a nearly nude view of her at the end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about Leela ( not my thing ) but Amy actually is kind of hot ( at times ) .
Just watch the Teenage Mutant Leela 's Hurdles episode where you get a nearly nude view of her at the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about Leela (not my thing) but Amy actually is kind of hot (at times).
Just watch the Teenage Mutant Leela's Hurdles episode where you get a nearly nude view of her at the end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722691</id>
	<title>Huh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255378500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one who sees this as sick? Come on... it's just a cartoon...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who sees this as sick ?
Come on... it 's just a cartoon.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who sees this as sick?
Come on... it's just a cartoon...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721373</id>
	<title>oblig. xkcd</title>
	<author>yali</author>
	<datestamp>1255373400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>Oh internet... Is there nothing you won't show naked?</em>
<p> <a href="http://xkcd.com/305/" title="xkcd.com">Nope.</a> [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh internet... Is there nothing you wo n't show naked ?
Nope. [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh internet... Is there nothing you won't show naked?
Nope. [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721755</id>
	<title>Nobody will notice Marge</title>
	<author>Boawk</author>
	<datestamp>1255374660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone just buys playboy for the articles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone just buys playboy for the articles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone just buys playboy for the articles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722115</id>
	<title>Re:Com'on</title>
	<author>chrysrobyn</author>
	<datestamp>1255375920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maggie?  Gross.  I mean, she's at least 19 now, maybe 20, so even if it's legal, it's not something I want to think about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maggie ?
Gross. I mean , she 's at least 19 now , maybe 20 , so even if it 's legal , it 's not something I want to think about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maggie?
Gross.  I mean, she's at least 19 now, maybe 20, so even if it's legal, it's not something I want to think about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29730651</id>
	<title>Can't wait..</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1255441560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't wait to j*ck off to that issue!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't wait to j * ck off to that issue !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't wait to j*ck off to that issue!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721691</id>
	<title>Boycot 7-Eleven!</title>
	<author>Teun</author>
	<datestamp>1255374420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Boycot 7-Eleven for not carrying all Playboy issues.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Boycot 7-Eleven for not carrying all Playboy issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boycot 7-Eleven for not carrying all Playboy issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721301</id>
	<title>Sure, why not?</title>
	<author>Steve Baker</author>
	<datestamp>1255373160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About as realistic as all the photoshopped girls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About as realistic as all the photoshopped girls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About as realistic as all the photoshopped girls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721255</id>
	<title>That'll get 'em!</title>
	<author>bdabautcb</author>
	<datestamp>1255373040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This was in the MPLS Star Trib. The Playboy rep said this was an idea to draw in younger readers to the magazine, whose average readership is 35.

Really? Is this marketing theory is only slightly better than the Windows 7 launch party video, or am I just too critical of marketing science?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was in the MPLS Star Trib .
The Playboy rep said this was an idea to draw in younger readers to the magazine , whose average readership is 35 .
Really ? Is this marketing theory is only slightly better than the Windows 7 launch party video , or am I just too critical of marketing science ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was in the MPLS Star Trib.
The Playboy rep said this was an idea to draw in younger readers to the magazine, whose average readership is 35.
Really? Is this marketing theory is only slightly better than the Windows 7 launch party video, or am I just too critical of marketing science?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721231</id>
	<title>New low</title>
	<author>moniker127</author>
	<datestamp>1255372980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a terrible idea. I think everyone at playboy involved with this should be shot, I think that the simpsons shoul've been canceled atleast 10 years ago, and I think that both playboy and the simpsons are old, stale, crap!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a terrible idea .
I think everyone at playboy involved with this should be shot , I think that the simpsons shoul 've been canceled atleast 10 years ago , and I think that both playboy and the simpsons are old , stale , crap !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a terrible idea.
I think everyone at playboy involved with this should be shot, I think that the simpsons shoul've been canceled atleast 10 years ago, and I think that both playboy and the simpsons are old, stale, crap!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723347</id>
	<title>Re:For crying out loud;</title>
	<author>belthize</author>
	<datestamp>1255338180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jump the shark, jumped the shark, jumped the shark<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>The phrase 'jump the shark' has itself skipped over various cartilaginous fish.  I seem to hear it once a day lately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jump the shark , jumped the shark , jumped the shark ...The phrase 'jump the shark ' has itself skipped over various cartilaginous fish .
I seem to hear it once a day lately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jump the shark, jumped the shark, jumped the shark ...The phrase 'jump the shark' has itself skipped over various cartilaginous fish.
I seem to hear it once a day lately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723255</id>
	<title>I wonder...</title>
	<author>Obfuscant</author>
	<datestamp>1255381020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if they are going to airbrush out all her "dermal imperfections"? <p>
Yes, Leela needs to be next. And then Lil' Red (from 'Hoodwinked'.) Red wants out of the forest, let's help her pay for her way out!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if they are going to airbrush out all her " dermal imperfections " ?
Yes , Leela needs to be next .
And then Lil ' Red ( from 'Hoodwinked' .
) Red wants out of the forest , let 's help her pay for her way out !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if they are going to airbrush out all her "dermal imperfections"?
Yes, Leela needs to be next.
And then Lil' Red (from 'Hoodwinked'.
) Red wants out of the forest, let's help her pay for her way out!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721073</id>
	<title>Rule 34!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255372500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, actually, wait.  In retrospect, let's not.  I don't think there ARE goggles that can do something for <em>that</em>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , actually , wait .
In retrospect , let 's not .
I do n't think there ARE goggles that can do something for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, actually, wait.
In retrospect, let's not.
I don't think there ARE goggles that can do something for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721619</id>
	<title>Since I got married I don't read Playboy</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1255374180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or other porn magazines. I don't think my wife would like me reading them.</p><p>But usually there are WWE Divas who pose for Playboy, but I think this is the first time a Simpsons character posed for Playboy. Is Playboy becoming softcore now in that it uses cartoon characters instead of real people? Who next? Jane Jetson from the Jetsons, Willma Flintstone from the Flintstones, Betty Rubble from The Flintstones, Lois Griffin from Family Guy, Leela from Futurerama, Amy Wong from Futurerama, Mary Jane Watson from Spider-Man? Will Playboy turn into a cartoon centerfold magazine or spin off a new magazine called Playboy Cartoon about nude cartoon characters for 20something young men? Is Playboy going after the Japanese Henti market or just trying to appeal to a younger readership? What if this attracts boys younger than 18 to read Playboy like 10, isn't that like marketing cigarettes using cartoon characters for kids? I know the magazine is sold to adults only, but if someone's father or uncle has an issue on the coffee table won't that get some boys to at least peek inside the cover?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or other porn magazines .
I do n't think my wife would like me reading them.But usually there are WWE Divas who pose for Playboy , but I think this is the first time a Simpsons character posed for Playboy .
Is Playboy becoming softcore now in that it uses cartoon characters instead of real people ?
Who next ?
Jane Jetson from the Jetsons , Willma Flintstone from the Flintstones , Betty Rubble from The Flintstones , Lois Griffin from Family Guy , Leela from Futurerama , Amy Wong from Futurerama , Mary Jane Watson from Spider-Man ?
Will Playboy turn into a cartoon centerfold magazine or spin off a new magazine called Playboy Cartoon about nude cartoon characters for 20something young men ?
Is Playboy going after the Japanese Henti market or just trying to appeal to a younger readership ?
What if this attracts boys younger than 18 to read Playboy like 10 , is n't that like marketing cigarettes using cartoon characters for kids ?
I know the magazine is sold to adults only , but if someone 's father or uncle has an issue on the coffee table wo n't that get some boys to at least peek inside the cover ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or other porn magazines.
I don't think my wife would like me reading them.But usually there are WWE Divas who pose for Playboy, but I think this is the first time a Simpsons character posed for Playboy.
Is Playboy becoming softcore now in that it uses cartoon characters instead of real people?
Who next?
Jane Jetson from the Jetsons, Willma Flintstone from the Flintstones, Betty Rubble from The Flintstones, Lois Griffin from Family Guy, Leela from Futurerama, Amy Wong from Futurerama, Mary Jane Watson from Spider-Man?
Will Playboy turn into a cartoon centerfold magazine or spin off a new magazine called Playboy Cartoon about nude cartoon characters for 20something young men?
Is Playboy going after the Japanese Henti market or just trying to appeal to a younger readership?
What if this attracts boys younger than 18 to read Playboy like 10, isn't that like marketing cigarettes using cartoon characters for kids?
I know the magazine is sold to adults only, but if someone's father or uncle has an issue on the coffee table won't that get some boys to at least peek inside the cover?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722663</id>
	<title>down under blue...?</title>
	<author>MoFoQ</author>
	<datestamp>1255378380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>even down under? (assuming there's something left down under)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>even down under ?
( assuming there 's something left down under )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>even down under?
(assuming there's something left down under)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721265</id>
	<title>Hentai</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1255373040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when did Playboy feature crappy hentai...?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when did Playboy feature crappy hentai... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when did Playboy feature crappy hentai...?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721345</id>
	<title>Re:Bah!</title>
	<author>Penguinisto</author>
	<datestamp>1255373280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh internet... Is there nothing you won't show naked?</p></div><p>Richard Stallman</p><p>(and yes, we are ever grateful that such an event has not occurred).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh internet... Is there nothing you wo n't show naked ? Richard Stallman ( and yes , we are ever grateful that such an event has not occurred ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh internet... Is there nothing you won't show naked?Richard Stallman(and yes, we are ever grateful that such an event has not occurred).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723035</id>
	<title>Re:In related news</title>
	<author>cLive ;-)</author>
	<datestamp>1255379820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think they already do and that the technical term is "blue rinse".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they already do and that the technical term is " blue rinse " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they already do and that the technical term is "blue rinse".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724823</id>
	<title>Re:peace of mind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255344120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the latest episode of the Simpsons, UFC-esque commentators mention (with worry) that Marge's breasts are real.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the latest episode of the Simpsons , UFC-esque commentators mention ( with worry ) that Marge 's breasts are real .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the latest episode of the Simpsons, UFC-esque commentators mention (with worry) that Marge's breasts are real.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722005</id>
	<title>Hey Marge!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255375500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Show me the blue!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Show me the blue !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Show me the blue!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721107</id>
	<title>Bah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255372620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can already find a ton of Marge Simpson pr0n on the internet.
<p>
Oh internet... Is there nothing you won't show naked?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can already find a ton of Marge Simpson pr0n on the internet .
Oh internet... Is there nothing you wo n't show naked ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can already find a ton of Marge Simpson pr0n on the internet.
Oh internet... Is there nothing you won't show naked?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255373640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Playboy jumped the shark loooooong time ago.</p><p>I found the quote about appealing to 20-somethings particularly funny for a couple reasons.</p><p>A 20-something has never seen a relevant current issue of Playboy, and likely cannot remember a relevant current episode of The Simpsons.</p><p>I mean, I think The Simpsons is still funny, but the time when it was ground breaking entertainment spurring on social examination of how the modern American family is portrayed on television, those days are long gone.</p><p>And I don't mean to make a lot of folks feel old, but Simpsons has been on the air for 20 years.  The big fans are not 20-somethings anymore.  We're 30- and 40-somethings.</p><p>(And we get our pr0n on the internet.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Playboy jumped the shark loooooong time ago.I found the quote about appealing to 20-somethings particularly funny for a couple reasons.A 20-something has never seen a relevant current issue of Playboy , and likely can not remember a relevant current episode of The Simpsons.I mean , I think The Simpsons is still funny , but the time when it was ground breaking entertainment spurring on social examination of how the modern American family is portrayed on television , those days are long gone.And I do n't mean to make a lot of folks feel old , but Simpsons has been on the air for 20 years .
The big fans are not 20-somethings anymore .
We 're 30- and 40-somethings .
( And we get our pr0n on the internet .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Playboy jumped the shark loooooong time ago.I found the quote about appealing to 20-somethings particularly funny for a couple reasons.A 20-something has never seen a relevant current issue of Playboy, and likely cannot remember a relevant current episode of The Simpsons.I mean, I think The Simpsons is still funny, but the time when it was ground breaking entertainment spurring on social examination of how the modern American family is portrayed on television, those days are long gone.And I don't mean to make a lot of folks feel old, but Simpsons has been on the air for 20 years.
The big fans are not 20-somethings anymore.
We're 30- and 40-somethings.
(And we get our pr0n on the internet.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721185</id>
	<title>Next issue...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255372860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm waiting for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turanga\_Leela" title="wikipedia.org">Leela</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy\_Wong" title="wikipedia.org">Amy</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm waiting for Leela [ wikipedia.org ] and Amy [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm waiting for Leela [wikipedia.org] and Amy [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724263</id>
	<title>Re:Since I got married I don't read Playboy</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1255341660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>this is the first time a Simpsons character posed for Playboy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... won't that get some boys to at least peek inside the cover?</p></div><p>No, the name "Playboy" printed on the cover would do that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>this is the first time a Simpsons character posed for Playboy ... wo n't that get some boys to at least peek inside the cover ? No , the name " Playboy " printed on the cover would do that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is the first time a Simpsons character posed for Playboy ... won't that get some boys to at least peek inside the cover?No, the name "Playboy" printed on the cover would do that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722525</id>
	<title>when can I order the Marge Simpson fembot?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255377660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A fembot is a "physiologically correct" female robot.
I heard this term in Speilberg's A.I. movie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A fembot is a " physiologically correct " female robot .
I heard this term in Speilberg 's A.I .
movie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A fembot is a "physiologically correct" female robot.
I heard this term in Speilberg's A.I.
movie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999</id>
	<title>Wow . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255372260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Playboy has to jump the shark?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Playboy has to jump the shark ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Playboy has to jump the shark?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29728411</id>
	<title>Re:For crying out loud;</title>
	<author>lewko</author>
	<datestamp>1255367460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>1) Cartoons are seldom sexy</i></p><p>Someone never played Leisure Suit Larry or watched Roger Rabbit...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Cartoons are seldom sexySomeone never played Leisure Suit Larry or watched Roger Rabbit.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Cartoons are seldom sexySomeone never played Leisure Suit Larry or watched Roger Rabbit...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724455</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255342500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Either you are going to be a really skinny Homer or your girlfriend is going to be a really fat Marge.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Either you are going to be a really skinny Homer or your girlfriend is going to be a really fat Marge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either you are going to be a really skinny Homer or your girlfriend is going to be a really fat Marge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721465</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255373700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it really any crazier than Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it really any crazier than Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it really any crazier than Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721217</id>
	<title>We want</title>
	<author>JustOK</author>
	<datestamp>1255372920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We want Betty Rubble!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We want Betty Rubble ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We want Betty Rubble!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722095</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255375860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I grew up looking at playboy in my teens in the 90s. Now I look back on issues from the 60s and 70s and damn it was so much better back then.</p><p>As for the Simpsons, the fans of the current show are younger.  They don't know how good it was and how far it's fallen.  Maybe there's a similar dynamic at work with Playboy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I grew up looking at playboy in my teens in the 90s .
Now I look back on issues from the 60s and 70s and damn it was so much better back then.As for the Simpsons , the fans of the current show are younger .
They do n't know how good it was and how far it 's fallen .
Maybe there 's a similar dynamic at work with Playboy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I grew up looking at playboy in my teens in the 90s.
Now I look back on issues from the 60s and 70s and damn it was so much better back then.As for the Simpsons, the fans of the current show are younger.
They don't know how good it was and how far it's fallen.
Maybe there's a similar dynamic at work with Playboy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723987</id>
	<title>Re:Bah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255340520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey.  HEY! SHUT UP!<br>I pray you haven't occurred the wrath of rule 34.  Don't say another Goddamn word. Up until now, I've been polite. If you say anything else - word one - I will kill myself. And when my tainted spirit finds its destination, I will topple the master of that dark place. From my black throne, I will lash together a machine of bone and blood, and fueled by my hatred for you this fear engine will bore a hole between this world and that one. When it begins, you will hear the sound of children screaming - as though from a great distance. A smoking orb of nothing will grow above your bed, and from it will emerge a thousand starving crows. As I slip through the widening maw in my new form, you will catch only a glimpse of my radiance before you are incinerated. Then as tears of bubbling pitch stream down my face, my dark work will begin. I will open one of my six mouths, and I will sing the song that ends the Earth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey .
HEY ! SHUT UP ! I pray you have n't occurred the wrath of rule 34 .
Do n't say another Goddamn word .
Up until now , I 've been polite .
If you say anything else - word one - I will kill myself .
And when my tainted spirit finds its destination , I will topple the master of that dark place .
From my black throne , I will lash together a machine of bone and blood , and fueled by my hatred for you this fear engine will bore a hole between this world and that one .
When it begins , you will hear the sound of children screaming - as though from a great distance .
A smoking orb of nothing will grow above your bed , and from it will emerge a thousand starving crows .
As I slip through the widening maw in my new form , you will catch only a glimpse of my radiance before you are incinerated .
Then as tears of bubbling pitch stream down my face , my dark work will begin .
I will open one of my six mouths , and I will sing the song that ends the Earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey.
HEY! SHUT UP!I pray you haven't occurred the wrath of rule 34.
Don't say another Goddamn word.
Up until now, I've been polite.
If you say anything else - word one - I will kill myself.
And when my tainted spirit finds its destination, I will topple the master of that dark place.
From my black throne, I will lash together a machine of bone and blood, and fueled by my hatred for you this fear engine will bore a hole between this world and that one.
When it begins, you will hear the sound of children screaming - as though from a great distance.
A smoking orb of nothing will grow above your bed, and from it will emerge a thousand starving crows.
As I slip through the widening maw in my new form, you will catch only a glimpse of my radiance before you are incinerated.
Then as tears of bubbling pitch stream down my face, my dark work will begin.
I will open one of my six mouths, and I will sing the song that ends the Earth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29725885</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>babyrat</author>
	<datestamp>1255349340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Look there's only one reason why things get put into Playboy magazine; so people can masturbate to them(while reading the articles).</i></p><p>Nope - there is only one reason why things get put into Playboy.  So they can sell more issues and make more money.</p><p><i>a character from their children's TV shows,</i></p><p>The Simpson's is not a childrens's TV show.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look there 's only one reason why things get put into Playboy magazine ; so people can masturbate to them ( while reading the articles ) .Nope - there is only one reason why things get put into Playboy .
So they can sell more issues and make more money.a character from their children 's TV shows,The Simpson 's is not a childrens 's TV show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look there's only one reason why things get put into Playboy magazine; so people can masturbate to them(while reading the articles).Nope - there is only one reason why things get put into Playboy.
So they can sell more issues and make more money.a character from their children's TV shows,The Simpson's is not a childrens's TV show.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29731925</id>
	<title>The toon I want to see nekkid is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255449060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Erin Esurance. She is HOT!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Erin Esurance .
She is HOT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Erin Esurance.
She is HOT!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721923</id>
	<title>7-11</title>
	<author>fiannaFailMan</author>
	<datestamp>1255375320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My local 7-Eleven covers up the lads' magazines featuring attractive bikini-clad women on the covers. On the same shelf they have those awful tabloid magazines festooned with bikini-clad celebrities and their cellulite. These are the magazines that are not covered up. Go figure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My local 7-Eleven covers up the lads ' magazines featuring attractive bikini-clad women on the covers .
On the same shelf they have those awful tabloid magazines festooned with bikini-clad celebrities and their cellulite .
These are the magazines that are not covered up .
Go figure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My local 7-Eleven covers up the lads' magazines featuring attractive bikini-clad women on the covers.
On the same shelf they have those awful tabloid magazines festooned with bikini-clad celebrities and their cellulite.
These are the magazines that are not covered up.
Go figure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721223</id>
	<title>Oh good.</title>
	<author>Jethro</author>
	<datestamp>1255372920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the first time I've wanted to get a Playboy since I was 12.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the first time I 've wanted to get a Playboy since I was 12 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the first time I've wanted to get a Playboy since I was 12.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722211</id>
	<title>Lois Griffin?</title>
	<author>akleos</author>
	<datestamp>1255376400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Marge is going to be in Playboy, does that mean we will get to see Lois Griffin in a pr0n mag soon?  I think she would be great for Hustler.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Marge is going to be in Playboy , does that mean we will get to see Lois Griffin in a pr0n mag soon ?
I think she would be great for Hustler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Marge is going to be in Playboy, does that mean we will get to see Lois Griffin in a pr0n mag soon?
I think she would be great for Hustler.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721657</id>
	<title>Wanted to moderate but...</title>
	<author>JimboFBX</author>
	<datestamp>1255374300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I really wanted to spend my mod points here but was disappointed nobody pointed this out:<br> <br>

*ahem*<br> <br>

How many other Playboy models feature hideous bug-eyes, a monstrous overbite, chimp-like ears, and freakish bee-hive hair?<br> <br>

And to throw in my own opinion: Remember folks, the picture was drawn by someone who probably resembles comic-book guy! Yeah!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really wanted to spend my mod points here but was disappointed nobody pointed this out : * ahem * How many other Playboy models feature hideous bug-eyes , a monstrous overbite , chimp-like ears , and freakish bee-hive hair ?
And to throw in my own opinion : Remember folks , the picture was drawn by someone who probably resembles comic-book guy !
Yeah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really wanted to spend my mod points here but was disappointed nobody pointed this out: 

*ahem* 

How many other Playboy models feature hideous bug-eyes, a monstrous overbite, chimp-like ears, and freakish bee-hive hair?
And to throw in my own opinion: Remember folks, the picture was drawn by someone who probably resembles comic-book guy!
Yeah!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722195</id>
	<title>Re:Seems odd . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255376340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously, you've never watched Fox. They promote moral outrage, preach moral rectitude, and practice hypocrisy. Do as I say, not as I do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously , you 've never watched Fox .
They promote moral outrage , preach moral rectitude , and practice hypocrisy .
Do as I say , not as I do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously, you've never watched Fox.
They promote moral outrage, preach moral rectitude, and practice hypocrisy.
Do as I say, not as I do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724783</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255343880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm on the late end of the 20's, but that still makes me a 20-something.  I considered the issue in which Cindy Margolis posed to be relevant.  It's the only Playboy I've ever purchased and I bought it on the weight of her name.  Margolis is a very interesting person and her explanation of her decision to pose nude for Playboy after declining so many times was a worthwhile read.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm on the late end of the 20 's , but that still makes me a 20-something .
I considered the issue in which Cindy Margolis posed to be relevant .
It 's the only Playboy I 've ever purchased and I bought it on the weight of her name .
Margolis is a very interesting person and her explanation of her decision to pose nude for Playboy after declining so many times was a worthwhile read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm on the late end of the 20's, but that still makes me a 20-something.
I considered the issue in which Cindy Margolis posed to be relevant.
It's the only Playboy I've ever purchased and I bought it on the weight of her name.
Margolis is a very interesting person and her explanation of her decision to pose nude for Playboy after declining so many times was a worthwhile read.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722315</id>
	<title>Playboy is desperate.</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1255376820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Didnt they try to sell off the entire company recently?</p><p>Its obvious that the magazine is pretty worthless these days. Actually most magazines are. The business is just dead, as the internet is where readers now turn and magazines just dont know how to make that profitable yet. Its amazing that they cant figure it out. I actually have ideas on this but i'm not selling or telling them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p><p>Playboy yet again behind the internet, we've all seen Marge, Lisa, and Maggie naked on the net for years<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Didnt they try to sell off the entire company recently ? Its obvious that the magazine is pretty worthless these days .
Actually most magazines are .
The business is just dead , as the internet is where readers now turn and magazines just dont know how to make that profitable yet .
Its amazing that they cant figure it out .
I actually have ideas on this but i 'm not selling or telling them : PPlayboy yet again behind the internet , we 've all seen Marge , Lisa , and Maggie naked on the net for years : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didnt they try to sell off the entire company recently?Its obvious that the magazine is pretty worthless these days.
Actually most magazines are.
The business is just dead, as the internet is where readers now turn and magazines just dont know how to make that profitable yet.
Its amazing that they cant figure it out.
I actually have ideas on this but i'm not selling or telling them :PPlayboy yet again behind the internet, we've all seen Marge, Lisa, and Maggie naked on the net for years :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721427</id>
	<title>Re:For crying out loud;</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1255373580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whoa, whoa, whoooooooa! <p>Marge has a really hot body! I really want to see her naked. The same goes for Lois Griffith! Quagmire <i>does</i> have great taste in cartoon chicks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoa , whoa , whoooooooa !
Marge has a really hot body !
I really want to see her naked .
The same goes for Lois Griffith !
Quagmire does have great taste in cartoon chicks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoa, whoa, whoooooooa!
Marge has a really hot body!
I really want to see her naked.
The same goes for Lois Griffith!
Quagmire does have great taste in cartoon chicks!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29729075</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>fractoid</author>
	<datestamp>1255376820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have to disagree. I am 24, and remember growing up with the simpsons. It is an amazingly layered show, or was. As a kid, the focus was on bart and lisa....., but growing up with the simpsons, you tend to notice the adult storylines and slowly understand and find funny or emphasize with their points of views and stories.</p></div><p>To me, this has always been the mark of great art. Enjoyable by and appropriate for a child on one level, and then with deeper layers for more mature viewers that keep it interesting at all ages. Pixar are past masters at this. Take their latest film, UP. From a kid's point of view it's YAY BALOONS YAY AFRICA YAY TALKING DOGS, but it's also an incredibly poignant look at the life of an old man desperately trying to salvage the lost dreams of his youth.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to disagree .
I am 24 , and remember growing up with the simpsons .
It is an amazingly layered show , or was .
As a kid , the focus was on bart and lisa..... , but growing up with the simpsons , you tend to notice the adult storylines and slowly understand and find funny or emphasize with their points of views and stories.To me , this has always been the mark of great art .
Enjoyable by and appropriate for a child on one level , and then with deeper layers for more mature viewers that keep it interesting at all ages .
Pixar are past masters at this .
Take their latest film , UP .
From a kid 's point of view it 's YAY BALOONS YAY AFRICA YAY TALKING DOGS , but it 's also an incredibly poignant look at the life of an old man desperately trying to salvage the lost dreams of his youth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to disagree.
I am 24, and remember growing up with the simpsons.
It is an amazingly layered show, or was.
As a kid, the focus was on bart and lisa....., but growing up with the simpsons, you tend to notice the adult storylines and slowly understand and find funny or emphasize with their points of views and stories.To me, this has always been the mark of great art.
Enjoyable by and appropriate for a child on one level, and then with deeper layers for more mature viewers that keep it interesting at all ages.
Pixar are past masters at this.
Take their latest film, UP.
From a kid's point of view it's YAY BALOONS YAY AFRICA YAY TALKING DOGS, but it's also an incredibly poignant look at the life of an old man desperately trying to salvage the lost dreams of his youth.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722483</id>
	<title>Er...</title>
	<author>M-RES</author>
	<datestamp>1255377480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...I only buy it for it's interesting articles and thoughtful investigative journalism anyway!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...I only buy it for it 's interesting articles and thoughtful investigative journalism anyway ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I only buy it for it's interesting articles and thoughtful investigative journalism anyway!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721153</id>
	<title>Re:Seems odd . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255372740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>rather than the owners of the Simpson's copyright (I presume Fox?) would agree to it.</p></div><p>Well, I seem to recall that Bart's already had his first nude appearance.</p><p>Keep in mind that Fox Pictures != Fox News.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>rather than the owners of the Simpson 's copyright ( I presume Fox ?
) would agree to it.Well , I seem to recall that Bart 's already had his first nude appearance.Keep in mind that Fox Pictures ! = Fox News .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rather than the owners of the Simpson's copyright (I presume Fox?
) would agree to it.Well, I seem to recall that Bart's already had his first nude appearance.Keep in mind that Fox Pictures != Fox News.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723853</id>
	<title>Re:For crying out loud;</title>
	<author>Obfuscant</author>
	<datestamp>1255340040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>1) Cartoons are seldom sexy</i> <p>
Maybe. But:
</p><ul> <li>Leela (from Futurama. Leela from Dr. Who was ultra-sexy, but she wasn't a cartoon.)</li>
<li>Lil' Red from Hoodwinked. Hubba Hubba.</li>
<li>King Neptune's daughter from the SpongeBob Movie.</li>
<li>Loise Griffin, and her daughter.</li>
</ul><p>
Excuse me, I need to take a break now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Cartoons are seldom sexy Maybe .
But : Leela ( from Futurama .
Leela from Dr. Who was ultra-sexy , but she was n't a cartoon .
) Lil ' Red from Hoodwinked .
Hubba Hubba .
King Neptune 's daughter from the SpongeBob Movie .
Loise Griffin , and her daughter .
Excuse me , I need to take a break now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Cartoons are seldom sexy 
Maybe.
But:
 Leela (from Futurama.
Leela from Dr. Who was ultra-sexy, but she wasn't a cartoon.
)
Lil' Red from Hoodwinked.
Hubba Hubba.
King Neptune's daughter from the SpongeBob Movie.
Loise Griffin, and her daughter.
Excuse me, I need to take a break now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722411</id>
	<title>Re:For crying out loud;</title>
	<author>samkass</author>
	<datestamp>1255377240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Marge is just doing this to pay off gambling debts...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Marge is just doing this to pay off gambling debts.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Marge is just doing this to pay off gambling debts...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721539</id>
	<title>Photoshopped</title>
	<author>eulernet</author>
	<datestamp>1255373940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope she won't get photoshopped, like the other models.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope she wo n't get photoshopped , like the other models .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope she won't get photoshopped, like the other models.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29727629</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>Legion303</author>
	<datestamp>1255360440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How the hell do they expect me to jerk off to this? They should have held out for Lois Griffin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How the hell do they expect me to jerk off to this ?
They should have held out for Lois Griffin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the hell do they expect me to jerk off to this?
They should have held out for Lois Griffin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722683</id>
	<title>Re:Rule 34!</title>
	<author>jitterman</author>
	<datestamp>1255378440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Finally, my sig has relevance!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , my sig has relevance !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, my sig has relevance!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721747</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>ircmaxell</author>
	<datestamp>1255374600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nope...  They copy Maxim...  <br> <br>
<a href="http://www.simpsonschannel.com/2004/03/maxim-mom-marge-simpson/" title="simpsonschannel.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.simpsonschannel.com/2004/03/maxim-mom-marge-simpson/</a> [simpsonschannel.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope... They copy Maxim.. . http : //www.simpsonschannel.com/2004/03/maxim-mom-marge-simpson/ [ simpsonschannel.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope...  They copy Maxim...   
http://www.simpsonschannel.com/2004/03/maxim-mom-marge-simpson/ [simpsonschannel.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722085</id>
	<title>Re:20-something ?</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1255375800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, the Simpson's had their fifteen minutes over fifteen years ago - they've been hanging on since by sheer force of habit.<br>
&nbsp; <br>And what is it with 7-11?  Wasn't it just a couple of years back (during another yawnfest Simpson's anniversary) that they decorated some of them as Quik-E Marts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , the Simpson 's had their fifteen minutes over fifteen years ago - they 've been hanging on since by sheer force of habit .
  And what is it with 7-11 ?
Was n't it just a couple of years back ( during another yawnfest Simpson 's anniversary ) that they decorated some of them as Quik-E Marts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, the Simpson's had their fifteen minutes over fifteen years ago - they've been hanging on since by sheer force of habit.
  And what is it with 7-11?
Wasn't it just a couple of years back (during another yawnfest Simpson's anniversary) that they decorated some of them as Quik-E Marts?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29727251</id>
	<title>Re:Bah!</title>
	<author>Tomfrh</author>
	<datestamp>1255357620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I can already find a ton of Marge Simpson pr0n on the internet. </i></p><p>Yeah but they are photoshop fakes, whereas these playboy pics are real.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can already find a ton of Marge Simpson pr0n on the internet .
Yeah but they are photoshop fakes , whereas these playboy pics are real .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can already find a ton of Marge Simpson pr0n on the internet.
Yeah but they are photoshop fakes, whereas these playboy pics are real.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721351</id>
	<title>Re:For crying out loud;</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255373280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And all this comes after the sexism article.  So much for denial.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And all this comes after the sexism article .
So much for denial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And all this comes after the sexism article.
So much for denial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29726159</id>
	<title>Re:Next issue...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255350780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am waiting for Jessica Rabbit<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Who\_Framed\_Roger\_Rabbit\_characters#Jessica\_Rabbit</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am waiting for Jessica Rabbithttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _Who \ _Framed \ _Roger \ _Rabbit \ _characters # Jessica \ _Rabbit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am waiting for Jessica Rabbithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Who\_Framed\_Roger\_Rabbit\_characters#Jessica\_Rabbit</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721901</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>Ke3g</author>
	<datestamp>1255375200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>PlayToon* lol</htmltext>
<tokenext>PlayToon * lol</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PlayToon* lol</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723055</id>
	<title>Re:In related news</title>
	<author>pegr</author>
	<datestamp>1255379940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>All of Hefner's girlfriends begin dying their hair blue.</i><br>All of Hefner's girlfriends begin dying their blue hair.</p><p>FTFY</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of Hefner 's girlfriends begin dying their hair blue.All of Hefner 's girlfriends begin dying their blue hair.FTFY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of Hefner's girlfriends begin dying their hair blue.All of Hefner's girlfriends begin dying their blue hair.FTFY</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29731643</id>
	<title>My (off-topic) Playboy experience</title>
	<author>professorguy</author>
	<datestamp>1255447860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to work for Michael S. Perlis (President of Playboy Publishing Group for many years).  Before Playboy, he ran the marketing department for a local ski resort.  Believe it or not, I had to <b>dress as a bunny</b> for him!  True story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to work for Michael S. Perlis ( President of Playboy Publishing Group for many years ) .
Before Playboy , he ran the marketing department for a local ski resort .
Believe it or not , I had to dress as a bunny for him !
True story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to work for Michael S. Perlis (President of Playboy Publishing Group for many years).
Before Playboy, he ran the marketing department for a local ski resort.
Believe it or not, I had to dress as a bunny for him!
True story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721057</id>
	<title>In related news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255372440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>All of Hefner's girlfriends begin dying their hair blue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All of Hefner 's girlfriends begin dying their hair blue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of Hefner's girlfriends begin dying their hair blue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29730173</id>
	<title>Re:For crying out loud;</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255436580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As to your first point, you obviously have never heard about Milo Manara and the other masters, just google it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As to your first point , you obviously have never heard about Milo Manara and the other masters , just google it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As to your first point, you obviously have never heard about Milo Manara and the other masters, just google it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723407</id>
	<title>A blow struck for Toons everywhere!</title>
	<author>ExRex</author>
	<datestamp>1255338540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's about time someone broke through the acetate ceiling. Now, if Disney would just let them profile Jessica Rabbit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about time someone broke through the acetate ceiling .
Now , if Disney would just let them profile Jessica Rabbit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about time someone broke through the acetate ceiling.
Now, if Disney would just let them profile Jessica Rabbit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723759</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1255339800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, the 20-something point is valid.  Most of them are probably thinking "you mean you want me to actually PAY for porn?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the 20-something point is valid .
Most of them are probably thinking " you mean you want me to actually PAY for porn ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the 20-something point is valid.
Most of them are probably thinking "you mean you want me to actually PAY for porn?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721067</id>
	<title>Seems odd . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255372500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This seems very unexpected.  Not that Playboy would do it, or even that people would buy it, but rather than the owners of the Simpson's copyright (I presume Fox?) would agree to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems very unexpected .
Not that Playboy would do it , or even that people would buy it , but rather than the owners of the Simpson 's copyright ( I presume Fox ?
) would agree to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems very unexpected.
Not that Playboy would do it, or even that people would buy it, but rather than the owners of the Simpson's copyright (I presume Fox?
) would agree to it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721159</id>
	<title>And for Playgirl</title>
	<author>Reason58</author>
	<datestamp>1255372800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Playgirl announces plans to feature Homer. When asked what prompted him to do the photo shoot, Homer said he needed the d'oh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Playgirl announces plans to feature Homer .
When asked what prompted him to do the photo shoot , Homer said he needed the d'oh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Playgirl announces plans to feature Homer.
When asked what prompted him to do the photo shoot, Homer said he needed the d'oh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29728595</id>
	<title>Women killed Playboy</title>
	<author>yooy</author>
	<datestamp>1255369680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can subscribe to Playboy for US$ 12:

<a href="https://w1.buysub.com/pubs/PY/PLY/PLY33578.jsp?cds\_page\_id=33578&amp;cds\_mag\_code=PLY&amp;id=1255408777221&amp;lsid=92852339372032972&amp;vid=1" title="buysub.com" rel="nofollow">https://w1.buysub.com/pubs/PY/PLY/PLY33578.jsp?cds\_page\_id=33578&amp;cds\_mag\_code=PLY&amp;id=1255408777221&amp;lsid=92852339372032972&amp;vid=1</a> [buysub.com]

If they can't compete by 12 bucks then they can't compete at all. What should they do? Give it away for free?

I have not read Playboy in a long time. But today there are other topics than 30 years ago that interest men. MMA, SciFi, Fitness, Computer etc. Just look at men specific TV channels. Playboy does not deliver this.

Porn can be had on the internet for free. Worse, Playboy does not offer much in this direction either. The last time I browsed it the pictures were so "artistic" that Marge Simpson is the right final for it.

This does not come to a surprise. I know a woman who worked for Playboy. Guess who is the majority of the employees? Women. I am sure women can make good magazines. I am sure women can make naked women "feel comfortable" in front of a camera, I love women but I am also sure that I won't likely be interested in a magazine "What women think men like" AKA as Playboy.

What men like and what women think men like are two very different things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can subscribe to Playboy for US $ 12 : https : //w1.buysub.com/pubs/PY/PLY/PLY33578.jsp ? cds \ _page \ _id = 33578&amp;cds \ _mag \ _code = PLY&amp;id = 1255408777221&amp;lsid = 92852339372032972&amp;vid = 1 [ buysub.com ] If they ca n't compete by 12 bucks then they ca n't compete at all .
What should they do ?
Give it away for free ?
I have not read Playboy in a long time .
But today there are other topics than 30 years ago that interest men .
MMA , SciFi , Fitness , Computer etc .
Just look at men specific TV channels .
Playboy does not deliver this .
Porn can be had on the internet for free .
Worse , Playboy does not offer much in this direction either .
The last time I browsed it the pictures were so " artistic " that Marge Simpson is the right final for it .
This does not come to a surprise .
I know a woman who worked for Playboy .
Guess who is the majority of the employees ?
Women. I am sure women can make good magazines .
I am sure women can make naked women " feel comfortable " in front of a camera , I love women but I am also sure that I wo n't likely be interested in a magazine " What women think men like " AKA as Playboy .
What men like and what women think men like are two very different things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can subscribe to Playboy for US$ 12:

https://w1.buysub.com/pubs/PY/PLY/PLY33578.jsp?cds\_page\_id=33578&amp;cds\_mag\_code=PLY&amp;id=1255408777221&amp;lsid=92852339372032972&amp;vid=1 [buysub.com]

If they can't compete by 12 bucks then they can't compete at all.
What should they do?
Give it away for free?
I have not read Playboy in a long time.
But today there are other topics than 30 years ago that interest men.
MMA, SciFi, Fitness, Computer etc.
Just look at men specific TV channels.
Playboy does not deliver this.
Porn can be had on the internet for free.
Worse, Playboy does not offer much in this direction either.
The last time I browsed it the pictures were so "artistic" that Marge Simpson is the right final for it.
This does not come to a surprise.
I know a woman who worked for Playboy.
Guess who is the majority of the employees?
Women. I am sure women can make good magazines.
I am sure women can make naked women "feel comfortable" in front of a camera, I love women but I am also sure that I won't likely be interested in a magazine "What women think men like" AKA as Playboy.
What men like and what women think men like are two very different things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722909</id>
	<title>All centerfolds are "cartoons" anyway</title>
	<author>dbet</author>
	<datestamp>1255379280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I gave up long ago even trying to find something sexy in an issue of Playboy.  Between air-brushing, filters (the ones that make the entire shot pinkish or blueish), and post-editing, you're no longer looking at a real woman.  In fact it often almost looks like a painting, rather than a photograph.
<br> <br>
And this is by no means an insult to the models, who are very nice looking in person.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I gave up long ago even trying to find something sexy in an issue of Playboy .
Between air-brushing , filters ( the ones that make the entire shot pinkish or blueish ) , and post-editing , you 're no longer looking at a real woman .
In fact it often almost looks like a painting , rather than a photograph .
And this is by no means an insult to the models , who are very nice looking in person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I gave up long ago even trying to find something sexy in an issue of Playboy.
Between air-brushing, filters (the ones that make the entire shot pinkish or blueish), and post-editing, you're no longer looking at a real woman.
In fact it often almost looks like a painting, rather than a photograph.
And this is by no means an insult to the models, who are very nice looking in person.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29727053</id>
	<title>Re: She's not Jessica Rabbit...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255356120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"How many other Playboy models feature hideous bug-eyes, a monstrous overbite, chimp-like ears, and freakish bee-hive hair?"</p><p>She's not bad. she's just drawn that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" How many other Playboy models feature hideous bug-eyes , a monstrous overbite , chimp-like ears , and freakish bee-hive hair ?
" She 's not bad .
she 's just drawn that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"How many other Playboy models feature hideous bug-eyes, a monstrous overbite, chimp-like ears, and freakish bee-hive hair?
"She's not bad.
she's just drawn that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721381</id>
	<title>7-11</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255373400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why won't 7-11 carry playboy all the time? Does it think it will detract from the bailey legal nude mags it stocks now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why wo n't 7-11 carry playboy all the time ?
Does it think it will detract from the bailey legal nude mags it stocks now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why won't 7-11 carry playboy all the time?
Does it think it will detract from the bailey legal nude mags it stocks now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722701</id>
	<title>Re:Seems odd . . .</title>
	<author>rascher</author>
	<datestamp>1255378500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And lets not forget about her stint at the erotic bakery!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And lets not forget about her stint at the erotic bakery !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And lets not forget about her stint at the erotic bakery!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29768083</id>
	<title>Re:Next issue...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255705080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's just wong!</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's just wong !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's just wong!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723027</id>
	<title>Re:Bah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255379820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as it's not you and Cowboy Neal making a love child...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as it 's not you and Cowboy Neal making a love child... : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as it's not you and Cowboy Neal making a love child... :P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721337</id>
	<title>20-something ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255373280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We knew that this would really appeal to the <b>20-something</b> crowd</p></div><p>Given that The Simpsons <b>first aired 19 years ago</b> and peaked not too long after that, try again with "30-something crowd".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We knew that this would really appeal to the 20-something crowdGiven that The Simpsons first aired 19 years ago and peaked not too long after that , try again with " 30-something crowd " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We knew that this would really appeal to the 20-something crowdGiven that The Simpsons first aired 19 years ago and peaked not too long after that, try again with "30-something crowd".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721243</id>
	<title>Re:Seems odd . . .</title>
	<author>dfxm</author>
	<datestamp>1255373040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm surprised Marge would do it. It seems out of character for her, especially considering she is a member of Springfield's Citizens' Committee on Moral Hygiene...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised Marge would do it .
It seems out of character for her , especially considering she is a member of Springfield 's Citizens ' Committee on Moral Hygiene.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised Marge would do it.
It seems out of character for her, especially considering she is a member of Springfield's Citizens' Committee on Moral Hygiene...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722801</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>trytoguess</author>
	<datestamp>1255378860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm? There are plenty of 20 something year old who are fans of the Simpsons. It was a rather accessible show with enough low brow stuff that even the kiddes could enjoy. I personally started liking the show around 1993 when I was 8 years old (no longer a fan though I do still watch on occasion). Also, lets not forget the episodes have been rerun over and over again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm ?
There are plenty of 20 something year old who are fans of the Simpsons .
It was a rather accessible show with enough low brow stuff that even the kiddes could enjoy .
I personally started liking the show around 1993 when I was 8 years old ( no longer a fan though I do still watch on occasion ) .
Also , lets not forget the episodes have been rerun over and over again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm?
There are plenty of 20 something year old who are fans of the Simpsons.
It was a rather accessible show with enough low brow stuff that even the kiddes could enjoy.
I personally started liking the show around 1993 when I was 8 years old (no longer a fan though I do still watch on occasion).
Also, lets not forget the episodes have been rerun over and over again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721967</id>
	<title>Nooooo....</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1255375380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the end of the world!</p><p>There is no way in hell that there will be a more obvious sign that the world as a whole finally has jumped the shark! ^^</p><p>But if you need it, wait for 2015, where you'll see the first tentacle rape cover.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the end of the world ! There is no way in hell that there will be a more obvious sign that the world as a whole finally has jumped the shark !
^ ^ But if you need it , wait for 2015 , where you 'll see the first tentacle rape cover .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the end of the world!There is no way in hell that there will be a more obvious sign that the world as a whole finally has jumped the shark!
^^But if you need it, wait for 2015, where you'll see the first tentacle rape cover.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721347</id>
	<title>Slashdot: News For Nerds</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255373280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A Rehash of VERY OLD NEWS.</p><p>I'd rather read Pravda, in RUSSIAN.</p><p>I've noticed Slashdot posts are decreasing almost as fast as the U.S. dollar.</p><p>Have fun in Beijing.</p><p>Yours In Petrograd,<br>Philboyd Studge</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A Rehash of VERY OLD NEWS.I 'd rather read Pravda , in RUSSIAN.I 've noticed Slashdot posts are decreasing almost as fast as the U.S. dollar.Have fun in Beijing.Yours In Petrograd,Philboyd Studge</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Rehash of VERY OLD NEWS.I'd rather read Pravda, in RUSSIAN.I've noticed Slashdot posts are decreasing almost as fast as the U.S. dollar.Have fun in Beijing.Yours In Petrograd,Philboyd Studge</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721333</id>
	<title>Re:For crying out loud;</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255373280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Playboy doesn't have to target you to be successful.  All they have to do is consistently find what enough people like to stay in business.  This time, they're thinking that Marge would be the key to getting the attention of the "20 somethings" that might not normally pick up a copy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Playboy does n't have to target you to be successful .
All they have to do is consistently find what enough people like to stay in business .
This time , they 're thinking that Marge would be the key to getting the attention of the " 20 somethings " that might not normally pick up a copy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Playboy doesn't have to target you to be successful.
All they have to do is consistently find what enough people like to stay in business.
This time, they're thinking that Marge would be the key to getting the attention of the "20 somethings" that might not normally pick up a copy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721953</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255375380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to disagree. I am 24, and remember growing up with the simpsons. It is an amazingly layered show, or was. As a kid, the focus was on bart and lisa....., but growing up with the simpsons, you tend to notice the adult storylines and slowly understand and find funny or emphasize with their points of views and stories.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to disagree .
I am 24 , and remember growing up with the simpsons .
It is an amazingly layered show , or was .
As a kid , the focus was on bart and lisa..... , but growing up with the simpsons , you tend to notice the adult storylines and slowly understand and find funny or emphasize with their points of views and stories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to disagree.
I am 24, and remember growing up with the simpsons.
It is an amazingly layered show, or was.
As a kid, the focus was on bart and lisa....., but growing up with the simpsons, you tend to notice the adult storylines and slowly understand and find funny or emphasize with their points of views and stories.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722393</id>
	<title>Re:In related news</title>
	<author>houghi</author>
	<datestamp>1255377120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps it is the other way around. Because all his girlfriends now have dyed their hair blue, he started to think Marge was sexy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps it is the other way around .
Because all his girlfriends now have dyed their hair blue , he started to think Marge was sexy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps it is the other way around.
Because all his girlfriends now have dyed their hair blue, he started to think Marge was sexy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29733883</id>
	<title>Re:For crying out loud;</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1255458000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1) Cartoons are seldom sexy</p></div><p>You haven't seen <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz\_the\_Cat\_(film)" title="wikipedia.org">Fritz the Cat</a> [wikipedia.org], I presume.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Cartoons are seldom sexyYou have n't seen Fritz the Cat [ wikipedia.org ] , I presume .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Cartoons are seldom sexyYou haven't seen Fritz the Cat [wikipedia.org], I presume.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29725869</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>beaviz</author>
	<datestamp>1255349220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>find -mindepth 3 -name \*.rar | grep S01 | grep -v subs | grep -v part[0-9] | sort -R | sort -R | head -n 1 | sed -r 's/\<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/\\\<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/g' | xargs unrar e &amp;&amp; find -maxdepth 1 -name \*.ogm -or -name \*.avi | sed -r 's/\<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/\\\<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/g' | xargs mplayer -fs &amp;&amp; rm *.avi; rm *.ogm</p><p>That's the reason for this way of having what you have in your script -- flexibility.</p><p>What do other people do?</p></div></blockquote><p>You mean there is any other way?! Once we had one of those unusable media center pc's. Damned complex, you had to close your eyes and scroll for a few seconds to select a random episode. Way too complex. This works every time, even without scrolling!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>find -mindepth 3 -name \ * .rar | grep S01 | grep -v subs | grep -v part [ 0-9 ] | sort -R | sort -R | head -n 1 | sed -r 's/ \ / \ \ \ /g ' | xargs unrar e &amp;&amp; find -maxdepth 1 -name \ * .ogm -or -name \ * .avi | sed -r 's/ \ / \ \ \ /g ' | xargs mplayer -fs &amp;&amp; rm * .avi ; rm * .ogmThat 's the reason for this way of having what you have in your script -- flexibility.What do other people do ? You mean there is any other way ? !
Once we had one of those unusable media center pc 's .
Damned complex , you had to close your eyes and scroll for a few seconds to select a random episode .
Way too complex .
This works every time , even without scrolling !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>find -mindepth 3 -name \*.rar | grep S01 | grep -v subs | grep -v part[0-9] | sort -R | sort -R | head -n 1 | sed -r 's/\ /\\\ /g' | xargs unrar e &amp;&amp; find -maxdepth 1 -name \*.ogm -or -name \*.avi | sed -r 's/\ /\\\ /g' | xargs mplayer -fs &amp;&amp; rm *.avi; rm *.ogmThat's the reason for this way of having what you have in your script -- flexibility.What do other people do?You mean there is any other way?!
Once we had one of those unusable media center pc's.
Damned complex, you had to close your eyes and scroll for a few seconds to select a random episode.
Way too complex.
This works every time, even without scrolling!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722007</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255375500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a twenty-something and am a big fan of the Simpsons as are several of my twenty-something friends.</p><p>Although, I do think your insight on why Simpsons aren't as good anymore is valid, but I think it's contribution was more general than just how the American family was portrayed on TV.  Either way, time has robbed it of it's potency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a twenty-something and am a big fan of the Simpsons as are several of my twenty-something friends.Although , I do think your insight on why Simpsons are n't as good anymore is valid , but I think it 's contribution was more general than just how the American family was portrayed on TV .
Either way , time has robbed it of it 's potency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a twenty-something and am a big fan of the Simpsons as are several of my twenty-something friends.Although, I do think your insight on why Simpsons aren't as good anymore is valid, but I think it's contribution was more general than just how the American family was portrayed on TV.
Either way, time has robbed it of it's potency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724423</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>bhartman34</author>
	<datestamp>1255342380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think the Simpsons is <i>totally</i> irrelevant now.  I think they've still done some good social commentary stuff lately.  Granted, they haven't done anything mind-bending, but that's not the show's style, anyway.  Anyone who's watched the show consistently knows what the show's politics are.   For the most part, Lisa's the social conscience of the show.

To me, the this has interesting implications for the show.

1)  Will Fox choose to have the Playboy spread written into the show somehow (e.g., mention it during one of the opening sequences -- possibly as a chalkboard gag)?

2)  Since posing naked for a magazine os so out of character for Marge (c.f., "Take My Wife, Sleaze"), how will the back story be written up in Playboy and/or the show?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the Simpsons is totally irrelevant now .
I think they 've still done some good social commentary stuff lately .
Granted , they have n't done anything mind-bending , but that 's not the show 's style , anyway .
Anyone who 's watched the show consistently knows what the show 's politics are .
For the most part , Lisa 's the social conscience of the show .
To me , the this has interesting implications for the show .
1 ) Will Fox choose to have the Playboy spread written into the show somehow ( e.g. , mention it during one of the opening sequences -- possibly as a chalkboard gag ) ?
2 ) Since posing naked for a magazine os so out of character for Marge ( c.f. , " Take My Wife , Sleaze " ) , how will the back story be written up in Playboy and/or the show ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the Simpsons is totally irrelevant now.
I think they've still done some good social commentary stuff lately.
Granted, they haven't done anything mind-bending, but that's not the show's style, anyway.
Anyone who's watched the show consistently knows what the show's politics are.
For the most part, Lisa's the social conscience of the show.
To me, the this has interesting implications for the show.
1)  Will Fox choose to have the Playboy spread written into the show somehow (e.g., mention it during one of the opening sequences -- possibly as a chalkboard gag)?
2)  Since posing naked for a magazine os so out of character for Marge (c.f., "Take My Wife, Sleaze"), how will the back story be written up in Playboy and/or the show?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29726193</id>
	<title>I'm Piss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255350900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bart Get Out I'm Piss!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bart Get Out I 'm Piss !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bart Get Out I'm Piss!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722517</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>Deanalator</author>
	<datestamp>1255377600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been watching simpsons since I was 5 (I'm 25 now), and I've never missed an episode.</p><p>Recently I've been watching 3-4 per day*, and my girlfriend and I are going as marge and homer this year for Halloween.  Last night my girlfriend and I were visiting my parent's house, and after dinner, we all sat around and watched the new simpsons episode. (though it has likely been many years since we had done that)</p><p>I'm not quite at OFF fanboi level, no posters, no collectibles still in the box, never been to a con (do they have cons?), but simpsons raised me, and is a huge part of our generation's culture.  It's not just me either, I remember playing simpsons trivia with other kids on the school bus, even back in elementary school.  The day I moved out of my parent's house, I remember my room mate unpacking his things and asking if it was okay to put a simpsons poster above the microwave.</p><p>* I normally play episodes while cooking.  It makes a good 20 minute timer, then I can watch an episode while eating also.  This is also used extensively on family guy, southpark, futurama, etc.  I just happen to have been in a simpsons mood recently.</p><p>pierce@doku:~$ cat simpsonstv.sh<br>while [ 1 == 1 ]<br>do<br>playrand<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/mnt/1000/movies/tv/simpsons/<br>sleep 3<br>done<br>pierce@doku:~$ cat<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/bin/playrand<br>#!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/bin/perl</p><p>$#ARGV==0 or die("usage:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./playrand \n");<br>print "find $ARGV[0] -type f";<br>print "\n";</p><p>$burn=rand(rand(rand(65535)));</p><p>@random=`find $ARGV[0]`;<br>$video=$random[int(rand($#random))];<br>chop($video);<br>system("mplayer -fs \"$video\"");</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been watching simpsons since I was 5 ( I 'm 25 now ) , and I 've never missed an episode.Recently I 've been watching 3-4 per day * , and my girlfriend and I are going as marge and homer this year for Halloween .
Last night my girlfriend and I were visiting my parent 's house , and after dinner , we all sat around and watched the new simpsons episode .
( though it has likely been many years since we had done that ) I 'm not quite at OFF fanboi level , no posters , no collectibles still in the box , never been to a con ( do they have cons ?
) , but simpsons raised me , and is a huge part of our generation 's culture .
It 's not just me either , I remember playing simpsons trivia with other kids on the school bus , even back in elementary school .
The day I moved out of my parent 's house , I remember my room mate unpacking his things and asking if it was okay to put a simpsons poster above the microwave .
* I normally play episodes while cooking .
It makes a good 20 minute timer , then I can watch an episode while eating also .
This is also used extensively on family guy , southpark , futurama , etc .
I just happen to have been in a simpsons mood recently.pierce @ doku : ~ $ cat simpsonstv.shwhile [ 1 = = 1 ] doplayrand /mnt/1000/movies/tv/simpsons/sleep 3donepierce @ doku : ~ $ cat /usr/bin/playrand # !
/usr/bin/perl $ # ARGV = = 0 or die ( " usage : ./playrand \ n " ) ; print " find $ ARGV [ 0 ] -type f " ; print " \ n " ; $ burn = rand ( rand ( rand ( 65535 ) ) ) ; @ random = ` find $ ARGV [ 0 ] ` ; $ video = $ random [ int ( rand ( $ # random ) ) ] ; chop ( $ video ) ; system ( " mplayer -fs \ " $ video \ " " ) ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been watching simpsons since I was 5 (I'm 25 now), and I've never missed an episode.Recently I've been watching 3-4 per day*, and my girlfriend and I are going as marge and homer this year for Halloween.
Last night my girlfriend and I were visiting my parent's house, and after dinner, we all sat around and watched the new simpsons episode.
(though it has likely been many years since we had done that)I'm not quite at OFF fanboi level, no posters, no collectibles still in the box, never been to a con (do they have cons?
), but simpsons raised me, and is a huge part of our generation's culture.
It's not just me either, I remember playing simpsons trivia with other kids on the school bus, even back in elementary school.
The day I moved out of my parent's house, I remember my room mate unpacking his things and asking if it was okay to put a simpsons poster above the microwave.
* I normally play episodes while cooking.
It makes a good 20 minute timer, then I can watch an episode while eating also.
This is also used extensively on family guy, southpark, futurama, etc.
I just happen to have been in a simpsons mood recently.pierce@doku:~$ cat simpsonstv.shwhile [ 1 == 1 ]doplayrand /mnt/1000/movies/tv/simpsons/sleep 3donepierce@doku:~$ cat /usr/bin/playrand#!
/usr/bin/perl$#ARGV==0 or die("usage: ./playrand \n");print "find $ARGV[0] -type f";print "\n";$burn=rand(rand(rand(65535)));@random=`find $ARGV[0]`;$video=$random[int(rand($#random))];chop($video);system("mplayer -fs \"$video\"");</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29725777</id>
	<title>Mmmmm !</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1255348800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well let me say that I applaud this act, and hope that they get Leela to follow suit. I may be an old prevert but Marge has a nice set of tits. The subtle hints of nipple and suggestive leaning over always do it for me. After all, the story is always more colourful in the minds eye. Here's my favourite <a href="http://files.headru.sh/flash/leela.html" title="headru.sh">Leela</a> [headru.sh] clip. COITUS INTERRUPTUS !</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well let me say that I applaud this act , and hope that they get Leela to follow suit .
I may be an old prevert but Marge has a nice set of tits .
The subtle hints of nipple and suggestive leaning over always do it for me .
After all , the story is always more colourful in the minds eye .
Here 's my favourite Leela [ headru.sh ] clip .
COITUS INTERRUPTUS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well let me say that I applaud this act, and hope that they get Leela to follow suit.
I may be an old prevert but Marge has a nice set of tits.
The subtle hints of nipple and suggestive leaning over always do it for me.
After all, the story is always more colourful in the minds eye.
Here's my favourite Leela [headru.sh] clip.
COITUS INTERRUPTUS !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722983</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1255379580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember sitting around with a bunch of college buddies and watching the premier episode of The Simpsons (the Christmas special in 1989) and being completely blown away. Back then, it was cutting edge (just the idea of showing a television cartoon character drinking in a bar was pretty radical in the Cosby era). But it stopped being anything close to cutting edge sometime around the time South Park premiered. The last ten years of the Simpsons has basically been on autopilot. I still watch it out of habit, and occasionally the writers will still manage a funny gag or two, but it's nowhere near what it used to be. Like poor Ozzy Osbourne, the Simpsons writers have long since moved from controversy and biting critiques into the mainstream and cliche.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember sitting around with a bunch of college buddies and watching the premier episode of The Simpsons ( the Christmas special in 1989 ) and being completely blown away .
Back then , it was cutting edge ( just the idea of showing a television cartoon character drinking in a bar was pretty radical in the Cosby era ) .
But it stopped being anything close to cutting edge sometime around the time South Park premiered .
The last ten years of the Simpsons has basically been on autopilot .
I still watch it out of habit , and occasionally the writers will still manage a funny gag or two , but it 's nowhere near what it used to be .
Like poor Ozzy Osbourne , the Simpsons writers have long since moved from controversy and biting critiques into the mainstream and cliche .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember sitting around with a bunch of college buddies and watching the premier episode of The Simpsons (the Christmas special in 1989) and being completely blown away.
Back then, it was cutting edge (just the idea of showing a television cartoon character drinking in a bar was pretty radical in the Cosby era).
But it stopped being anything close to cutting edge sometime around the time South Park premiered.
The last ten years of the Simpsons has basically been on autopilot.
I still watch it out of habit, and occasionally the writers will still manage a funny gag or two, but it's nowhere near what it used to be.
Like poor Ozzy Osbourne, the Simpsons writers have long since moved from controversy and biting critiques into the mainstream and cliche.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29731285</id>
	<title>They should have put up Lois Griffin as</title>
	<author>KiwiCanuck</author>
	<datestamp>1255445940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>20 somethings prefer Family Guy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>20 somethings prefer Family Guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>20 somethings prefer Family Guy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722457</id>
	<title>Matt Groening will draw the layout, right?</title>
	<author>Trip6</author>
	<datestamp>1255377420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're not actually seeing Marge Simpson naked, we're seeing Matt Groening's VISION of Marge Simpson naked.  Not sure I want to be that deep into his fantasies...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're not actually seeing Marge Simpson naked , we 're seeing Matt Groening 's VISION of Marge Simpson naked .
Not sure I want to be that deep into his fantasies.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're not actually seeing Marge Simpson naked, we're seeing Matt Groening's VISION of Marge Simpson naked.
Not sure I want to be that deep into his fantasies...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722911</id>
	<title>It boggled my mind too, at first ...</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1255379280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But then I realized I live in a world that just awarded Barrack Obama a Nobel Peace prize.  In that light, it's all starting to make more sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But then I realized I live in a world that just awarded Barrack Obama a Nobel Peace prize .
In that light , it 's all starting to make more sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But then I realized I live in a world that just awarded Barrack Obama a Nobel Peace prize.
In that light, it's all starting to make more sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722207</id>
	<title>Uh..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255376400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did they just compare black people to cartoon characters?</p><p>"the cover will bring to mind another first for the magazine that occurred in 1971 when a black woman appeared on the cover in exactly the same pose and, like Marge, smiling under an impressive head of hair."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did they just compare black people to cartoon characters ?
" the cover will bring to mind another first for the magazine that occurred in 1971 when a black woman appeared on the cover in exactly the same pose and , like Marge , smiling under an impressive head of hair .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did they just compare black people to cartoon characters?
"the cover will bring to mind another first for the magazine that occurred in 1971 when a black woman appeared on the cover in exactly the same pose and, like Marge, smiling under an impressive head of hair.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29727161</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255356900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Marge, a character from their children's TV shows,</p></div><p>Only if they're the same quality of parents who let their kids watch South Park, Family Guy, Drawn Together, or Adult Swim.</p><p>

Simpsons, children's TV? Because it's animated? You're the reason a hentai DVD with a cover shot of a woman being stripped and groped by multiple guys has to carry an "ABSOLUTELY NOT FOR CHILDREN" warning, right? You're the one who went to an adult video store, saw the DVD next to <i>Lesbian Whips-N-Chains Threesome 17</i>, and said "Well, that girl looks like she's about to get gang-raped, but it's animated so it must be fine for the kids, right?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Marge , a character from their children 's TV shows,Only if they 're the same quality of parents who let their kids watch South Park , Family Guy , Drawn Together , or Adult Swim .
Simpsons , children 's TV ?
Because it 's animated ?
You 're the reason a hentai DVD with a cover shot of a woman being stripped and groped by multiple guys has to carry an " ABSOLUTELY NOT FOR CHILDREN " warning , right ?
You 're the one who went to an adult video store , saw the DVD next to Lesbian Whips-N-Chains Threesome 17 , and said " Well , that girl looks like she 's about to get gang-raped , but it 's animated so it must be fine for the kids , right ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Marge, a character from their children's TV shows,Only if they're the same quality of parents who let their kids watch South Park, Family Guy, Drawn Together, or Adult Swim.
Simpsons, children's TV?
Because it's animated?
You're the reason a hentai DVD with a cover shot of a woman being stripped and groped by multiple guys has to carry an "ABSOLUTELY NOT FOR CHILDREN" warning, right?
You're the one who went to an adult video store, saw the DVD next to Lesbian Whips-N-Chains Threesome 17, and said "Well, that girl looks like she's about to get gang-raped, but it's animated so it must be fine for the kids, right?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29728641</id>
	<title>Think of the chilldren</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255370040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Won't someone please think of the children?" - Maude Flanders</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Wo n't someone please think of the children ?
" - Maude Flanders</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Won't someone please think of the children?
" - Maude Flanders</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722173</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>religious freak</author>
	<datestamp>1255376160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess I'm in the minority, but I'm going to buy it.  It's a few bucks, it's kinda unique, and why not?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I 'm in the minority , but I 'm going to buy it .
It 's a few bucks , it 's kinda unique , and why not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I'm in the minority, but I'm going to buy it.
It's a few bucks, it's kinda unique, and why not?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722197</id>
	<title>Kudos to Playboy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255376340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...for bringing all my adolescent shame and maladjustion right back up to the surface.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...for bringing all my adolescent shame and maladjustion right back up to the surface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...for bringing all my adolescent shame and maladjustion right back up to the surface.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722059</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1255375740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, Randy Marsh from South Park said it best:</p><p>"Once you jack off to Japanese girls puking in each other's mouths, you can't exactly go back to Playboy."</p><p>The Internet's answer to TFA would be: OH BTW: Pix or it didn't happen! KTHXBAI</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , Randy Marsh from South Park said it best : " Once you jack off to Japanese girls puking in each other 's mouths , you ca n't exactly go back to Playboy .
" The Internet 's answer to TFA would be : OH BTW : Pix or it did n't happen !
KTHXBAI</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, Randy Marsh from South Park said it best:"Once you jack off to Japanese girls puking in each other's mouths, you can't exactly go back to Playboy.
"The Internet's answer to TFA would be: OH BTW: Pix or it didn't happen!
KTHXBAI</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721669</id>
	<title>Re:Next issue...</title>
	<author>vodevil</author>
	<datestamp>1255374300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>hopefully we have the technology now to see amy's obscene tattoo!</htmltext>
<tokenext>hopefully we have the technology now to see amy 's obscene tattoo !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hopefully we have the technology now to see amy's obscene tattoo!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053</id>
	<title>For crying out loud;</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255372440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>At the risk of being modded down furiously, I would like to express my opinion on this:<br>
1) Cartoons are seldom sexy<br>
2) The Simpsons jumped the shark years ago. Since then it has been repeatedly jumping the shark, again and again, once every day at least in the vain hope that somebody notices that it has jumped the shark. So far very few people have.<br>
3) Cross-promoting press release opportunities like this bore me to tears. I can understand Slashdot covering this, but I have seen this "news" in 'serious' newspapers. FFS.<br>
That is all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the risk of being modded down furiously , I would like to express my opinion on this : 1 ) Cartoons are seldom sexy 2 ) The Simpsons jumped the shark years ago .
Since then it has been repeatedly jumping the shark , again and again , once every day at least in the vain hope that somebody notices that it has jumped the shark .
So far very few people have .
3 ) Cross-promoting press release opportunities like this bore me to tears .
I can understand Slashdot covering this , but I have seen this " news " in 'serious ' newspapers .
FFS . That is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the risk of being modded down furiously, I would like to express my opinion on this:
1) Cartoons are seldom sexy
2) The Simpsons jumped the shark years ago.
Since then it has been repeatedly jumping the shark, again and again, once every day at least in the vain hope that somebody notices that it has jumped the shark.
So far very few people have.
3) Cross-promoting press release opportunities like this bore me to tears.
I can understand Slashdot covering this, but I have seen this "news" in 'serious' newspapers.
FFS.
That is all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722385</id>
	<title>Okay....</title>
	<author>mythandros</author>
	<datestamp>1255377120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looking at this would be strange enough.  Now try to imagine being the guy who has to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/draw/ this stuff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at this would be strange enough .
Now try to imagine being the guy who has to /draw/ this stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking at this would be strange enough.
Now try to imagine being the guy who has to /draw/ this stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722461</id>
	<title>how much of...</title>
	<author>jDeepbeep</author>
	<datestamp>1255377420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How much of the centerfold is taken up by the beehive?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much of the centerfold is taken up by the beehive ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much of the centerfold is taken up by the beehive?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29725999</id>
	<title>one question</title>
	<author>the\_wesman</author>
	<datestamp>1255349820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>does the carpet match the pubes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>does the carpet match the pubes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>does the carpet match the pubes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29725021</id>
	<title>Will the issue be distributed in Australia?</title>
	<author>Doug52392</author>
	<datestamp>1255345020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if this issue of Playboy will be avialbe in Australia, given their <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7770781.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">intolerance towards cartoon pornography...</a> [bbc.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if this issue of Playboy will be avialbe in Australia , given their intolerance towards cartoon pornography... [ bbc.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if this issue of Playboy will be avialbe in Australia, given their intolerance towards cartoon pornography... [bbc.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29729461</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>keatonguy</author>
	<datestamp>1255425000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Strange, you seem to be speaking as though sexualizing a feminine symbol is unhealthy. Quite the contrary, it's basic human nature. An illustration, in this case a cartoon character, is in a way a symbol. Marge is a symbol, a metaphor, for a woman. If you are attracted to women, and then because the symbol Marge is associated with women, there is grounds for the symbol to carry a sexual connotation. That's just basic psychology.</p><p>And if what you're implying is that sexuality itself is unhealthy, well, that discussion is a much larger can of worms, one I can't be arsed to open and deal with right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Strange , you seem to be speaking as though sexualizing a feminine symbol is unhealthy .
Quite the contrary , it 's basic human nature .
An illustration , in this case a cartoon character , is in a way a symbol .
Marge is a symbol , a metaphor , for a woman .
If you are attracted to women , and then because the symbol Marge is associated with women , there is grounds for the symbol to carry a sexual connotation .
That 's just basic psychology.And if what you 're implying is that sexuality itself is unhealthy , well , that discussion is a much larger can of worms , one I ca n't be arsed to open and deal with right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strange, you seem to be speaking as though sexualizing a feminine symbol is unhealthy.
Quite the contrary, it's basic human nature.
An illustration, in this case a cartoon character, is in a way a symbol.
Marge is a symbol, a metaphor, for a woman.
If you are attracted to women, and then because the symbol Marge is associated with women, there is grounds for the symbol to carry a sexual connotation.
That's just basic psychology.And if what you're implying is that sexuality itself is unhealthy, well, that discussion is a much larger can of worms, one I can't be arsed to open and deal with right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721809</id>
	<title>Re:Seems odd . . .</title>
	<author>Stuart Gibson</author>
	<datestamp>1255374840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large\_Marge" title="wikipedia.org">Mogambo!</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mogambo !
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mogambo!
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29730591</id>
	<title>Re:Bah!</title>
	<author>molecular</author>
	<datestamp>1255441020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can already find a ton of Marge Simpson pr0n on the internet.</p></div><p>yeah, but it's all fake.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can already find a ton of Marge Simpson pr0n on the internet.yeah , but it 's all fake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can already find a ton of Marge Simpson pr0n on the internet.yeah, but it's all fake.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721507</id>
	<title>What's next?</title>
	<author>ParanoiaBOTS</author>
	<datestamp>1255373820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will playgirl do a centerfold for crusty the clown?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will playgirl do a centerfold for crusty the clown ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will playgirl do a centerfold for crusty the clown?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722883</id>
	<title>Re:Rule 34!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255379220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My eyes! The goggles do nothing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My eyes !
The goggles do nothing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My eyes!
The goggles do nothing!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721863</id>
	<title>Re:For crying out loud;</title>
	<author>ZarathustraDK</author>
	<datestamp>1255375020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1) Cartoons are seldom sexy</p></div><p>3D-fascist!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Cartoons are seldom sexy3D-fascist !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Cartoons are seldom sexy3D-fascist!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29728361</id>
	<title>Re:Since I got married I don't read Playboy</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1255367160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I apologize for the flamebait. It should have been funny instead as I meant it as a joke.</p><p><a href="http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/UnNews:Playboy\_centerfold\_is\_Marge\_Simpson\_spins\_off\_Playboy\_Jr.\_for\_Boys" title="wikia.com">Somewhere on the Internet this is funny</a> [wikia.com] and people on Slashdot should know by now that I try to write things as funny and not flamebait. I am, after all, an Internet Comedian.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I apologize for the flamebait .
It should have been funny instead as I meant it as a joke.Somewhere on the Internet this is funny [ wikia.com ] and people on Slashdot should know by now that I try to write things as funny and not flamebait .
I am , after all , an Internet Comedian .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I apologize for the flamebait.
It should have been funny instead as I meant it as a joke.Somewhere on the Internet this is funny [wikia.com] and people on Slashdot should know by now that I try to write things as funny and not flamebait.
I am, after all, an Internet Comedian.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29730535</id>
	<title>Nothing new here, move on...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255440600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Marge Simpson has been nude (and a lot more) on the p0rn sites for a LONG time.  So what's the big deal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Marge Simpson has been nude ( and a lot more ) on the p0rn sites for a LONG time .
So what 's the big deal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Marge Simpson has been nude (and a lot more) on the p0rn sites for a LONG time.
So what's the big deal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29726779</id>
	<title>Finally a real woman...</title>
	<author>Vitriol+Angst</author>
	<datestamp>1255354200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... not just another air brushed and plastic lady on PB.</p><p>Just an attractive woman being what she naturally is.</p><p>Bravo Playb0y!</p><p>Now if we could only get her twin sisters to do, you know, that kind of expose that only your photographers can do tastefully.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... not just another air brushed and plastic lady on PB.Just an attractive woman being what she naturally is.Bravo Playb0y ! Now if we could only get her twin sisters to do , you know , that kind of expose that only your photographers can do tastefully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... not just another air brushed and plastic lady on PB.Just an attractive woman being what she naturally is.Bravo Playb0y!Now if we could only get her twin sisters to do, you know, that kind of expose that only your photographers can do tastefully.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724587</id>
	<title>260+ comments thus far on a geek website...</title>
	<author>HungWeiLo</author>
	<datestamp>1255343040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and yet not one comment questioning whether the artist will answer the "carpet match the drapes" question? I'm shocked with disappointment!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and yet not one comment questioning whether the artist will answer the " carpet match the drapes " question ?
I 'm shocked with disappointment !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and yet not one comment questioning whether the artist will answer the "carpet match the drapes" question?
I'm shocked with disappointment!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723115</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that</title>
	<author>DinDaddy</author>
	<datestamp>1255380240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope.The cover was newsstand copies only, so they'll just continue to pick the issues they want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope.The cover was newsstand copies only , so they 'll just continue to pick the issues they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope.The cover was newsstand copies only, so they'll just continue to pick the issues they want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723957</id>
	<title>Re:Seems odd . . .</title>
	<author>gparent</author>
	<datestamp>1255340400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure you're aware, but the simpsons aren't real!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure you 're aware , but the simpsons are n't real !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure you're aware, but the simpsons aren't real!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721603</id>
	<title>Could it also be...</title>
	<author>sirgoran</author>
	<datestamp>1255374180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That they will end up using this as fodder for a episode of the Simpsons?
<br> <br>
You know it will end up in the show as a story line.
<br> <br>
-Goran</htmltext>
<tokenext>That they will end up using this as fodder for a episode of the Simpsons ?
You know it will end up in the show as a story line .
-Goran</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That they will end up using this as fodder for a episode of the Simpsons?
You know it will end up in the show as a story line.
-Goran</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721095</id>
	<title>peace of mind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255372560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least we won't have to debate whether or not the rack is real, so I can sleep easy for once.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least we wo n't have to debate whether or not the rack is real , so I can sleep easy for once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least we won't have to debate whether or not the rack is real, so I can sleep easy for once.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721627</id>
	<title>Ironically</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255374240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot goes straight from story with tons of self-righteous complaints from geeks announcing that THEY'RE not sexist and neither is the FOSS system, to complaining that Playboy's latest attempt to make itself relevant to the younger generations is... what, I don't know, not sexy enough?  Hello?</p><p>I'm sure this will get modded troll, particularly as I lurk and don't have an account, but honestly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot goes straight from story with tons of self-righteous complaints from geeks announcing that THEY 'RE not sexist and neither is the FOSS system , to complaining that Playboy 's latest attempt to make itself relevant to the younger generations is... what , I do n't know , not sexy enough ?
Hello ? I 'm sure this will get modded troll , particularly as I lurk and do n't have an account , but honestly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot goes straight from story with tons of self-righteous complaints from geeks announcing that THEY'RE not sexist and neither is the FOSS system, to complaining that Playboy's latest attempt to make itself relevant to the younger generations is... what, I don't know, not sexy enough?
Hello?I'm sure this will get modded troll, particularly as I lurk and don't have an account, but honestly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722671</id>
	<title>Re:New low</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255378380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you truly believe people with stupid yet ultimately harmless ideas should be shot, I recommend offing yourself first for that height of idiocy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you truly believe people with stupid yet ultimately harmless ideas should be shot , I recommend offing yourself first for that height of idiocy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you truly believe people with stupid yet ultimately harmless ideas should be shot, I recommend offing yourself first for that height of idiocy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722165</id>
	<title>None sexist comment</title>
	<author>Gudeldar</author>
	<datestamp>1255376160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>[censored]

Sorry, I had a really funny comment but Bryce Byfield didn't approve of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ censored ] Sorry , I had a really funny comment but Bryce Byfield did n't approve of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[censored]

Sorry, I had a really funny comment but Bryce Byfield didn't approve of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723181</id>
	<title>Rule 34 on Stallman!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255380660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on, do it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on , do it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on, do it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721377</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>bughunter</author>
	<datestamp>1255373400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Has to jump</i>?  More like <i>has jumped.</i> </p><p>In fact, Hefner's magazine has finished the jump, but finished low and smacked into the face of the landing ramp, and it's now struggling to remove its skis and swim free of the shark pen, while being circled by the Brazzer Shark and eyed hungrily by the PiR0Nahs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has to jump ?
More like has jumped .
In fact , Hefner 's magazine has finished the jump , but finished low and smacked into the face of the landing ramp , and it 's now struggling to remove its skis and swim free of the shark pen , while being circled by the Brazzer Shark and eyed hungrily by the PiR0Nahs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Has to jump?
More like has jumped.
In fact, Hefner's magazine has finished the jump, but finished low and smacked into the face of the landing ramp, and it's now struggling to remove its skis and swim free of the shark pen, while being circled by the Brazzer Shark and eyed hungrily by the PiR0Nahs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723191</id>
	<title>Re:Bah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255380720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now you've done it!</p><p>Rule 34 is about to set in!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now you 've done it ! Rule 34 is about to set in !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now you've done it!Rule 34 is about to set in!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29729069</id>
	<title>P-Shop</title>
	<author>JDHowells</author>
	<datestamp>1255376760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This has to be the first time that amateur photoshopped versions are going to be more realistic than the reality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has to be the first time that amateur photoshopped versions are going to be more realistic than the reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has to be the first time that amateur photoshopped versions are going to be more realistic than the reality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29725185</id>
	<title>Simpsons has been dead for years, sadly.</title>
	<author>AbRASiON</author>
	<datestamp>1255345800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know there's other posts of this type but really does anyone care about the simpsons anymore?<br>The original few seasons, even 6 or 7 are quite good but it slowly devolved into an absoloute shambles of a television show.<br>The clever writing is gone, the episodes about morals have covered every topic imaginable - there's little left for the show to do with a batch of good writers, let alone whoever they have now.</p><p>I have caught the occassional episode in the past 10 years and the vast majority have been terrible to downright embarassing.<br>Let the show die, please.</p><p>of course Futurama got canned didn't it? but that didn't appeal to the lowest common denominator and sadly the 4 movies following up Futurama had lost most of the spark.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know there 's other posts of this type but really does anyone care about the simpsons anymore ? The original few seasons , even 6 or 7 are quite good but it slowly devolved into an absoloute shambles of a television show.The clever writing is gone , the episodes about morals have covered every topic imaginable - there 's little left for the show to do with a batch of good writers , let alone whoever they have now.I have caught the occassional episode in the past 10 years and the vast majority have been terrible to downright embarassing.Let the show die , please.of course Futurama got canned did n't it ?
but that did n't appeal to the lowest common denominator and sadly the 4 movies following up Futurama had lost most of the spark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know there's other posts of this type but really does anyone care about the simpsons anymore?The original few seasons, even 6 or 7 are quite good but it slowly devolved into an absoloute shambles of a television show.The clever writing is gone, the episodes about morals have covered every topic imaginable - there's little left for the show to do with a batch of good writers, let alone whoever they have now.I have caught the occassional episode in the past 10 years and the vast majority have been terrible to downright embarassing.Let the show die, please.of course Futurama got canned didn't it?
but that didn't appeal to the lowest common denominator and sadly the 4 movies following up Futurama had lost most of the spark.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722703</id>
	<title>Jessica Rabbit</title>
	<author>realsilly</author>
	<datestamp>1255378500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now if it was Jessica Rabbit, I'm sure you'd get more sales than with Marge Simpson.</p><p>Besides if anyone would pose naked for Playboy, it should be the future Lisa Simpson, she actually had the barbie doll curves in the one episode that they show of the Future College Lisa.  And I'm sure Lisa will stray and go quite deviant in her college years, she does have Homer as a father....  hee hee hee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if it was Jessica Rabbit , I 'm sure you 'd get more sales than with Marge Simpson.Besides if anyone would pose naked for Playboy , it should be the future Lisa Simpson , she actually had the barbie doll curves in the one episode that they show of the Future College Lisa .
And I 'm sure Lisa will stray and go quite deviant in her college years , she does have Homer as a father.... hee hee hee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if it was Jessica Rabbit, I'm sure you'd get more sales than with Marge Simpson.Besides if anyone would pose naked for Playboy, it should be the future Lisa Simpson, she actually had the barbie doll curves in the one episode that they show of the Future College Lisa.
And I'm sure Lisa will stray and go quite deviant in her college years, she does have Homer as a father....  hee hee hee.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29727215</id>
	<title>Re:For crying out loud;</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255357320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's because the Simpsons is still liked by most people, despite what you think. You see, we all live in the real world where things don't become irrelevant simply because you want them to be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's because the Simpsons is still liked by most people , despite what you think .
You see , we all live in the real world where things do n't become irrelevant simply because you want them to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's because the Simpsons is still liked by most people, despite what you think.
You see, we all live in the real world where things don't become irrelevant simply because you want them to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721315</id>
	<title>Would you rather see Julie Kavner?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255373220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean she was great on Awakenings and the Tracy Ullman show.

Kinda old for this sorta thing, but arguably better than a drawing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean she was great on Awakenings and the Tracy Ullman show .
Kinda old for this sorta thing , but arguably better than a drawing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean she was great on Awakenings and the Tracy Ullman show.
Kinda old for this sorta thing, but arguably better than a drawing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722223</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>Dahamma</author>
	<datestamp>1255376460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A 20-something has never seen a relevant current issue of Playboy, and likely cannot remember a relevant current episode of The Simpsons.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>Simpsons has been on the air for 20 years. The big fans are not 20-somethings anymore. We're 30- and 40-somethings.</i></p><p>Very definitive statements, but they are just not true...</p><p>30 seconds of searching shows that the Simpsons still consistently ranks #1 or #2 in its timeslot among teens, 18-34, and 18-49 demographics.  And a less scientific but still valid point is that among about a dozen of my younger cousins in the age range of 10-30 I don't know a single one who isn't a Simpsons fan.  I know plenty of people who watch the Simpsons with their kids - which is probably part of the reason it IS so popular among such a wide demographic after all these years...</p><p>Do you really think a major publication like Playboy, a major network like Fox, and a major retail chain like 7-11 would launch a campaign like this without doing at least 30 seconds of trivial demographic research?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A 20-something has never seen a relevant current issue of Playboy , and likely can not remember a relevant current episode of The Simpsons .
...Simpsons has been on the air for 20 years .
The big fans are not 20-somethings anymore .
We 're 30- and 40-somethings.Very definitive statements , but they are just not true...30 seconds of searching shows that the Simpsons still consistently ranks # 1 or # 2 in its timeslot among teens , 18-34 , and 18-49 demographics .
And a less scientific but still valid point is that among about a dozen of my younger cousins in the age range of 10-30 I do n't know a single one who is n't a Simpsons fan .
I know plenty of people who watch the Simpsons with their kids - which is probably part of the reason it IS so popular among such a wide demographic after all these years...Do you really think a major publication like Playboy , a major network like Fox , and a major retail chain like 7-11 would launch a campaign like this without doing at least 30 seconds of trivial demographic research ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A 20-something has never seen a relevant current issue of Playboy, and likely cannot remember a relevant current episode of The Simpsons.
...Simpsons has been on the air for 20 years.
The big fans are not 20-somethings anymore.
We're 30- and 40-somethings.Very definitive statements, but they are just not true...30 seconds of searching shows that the Simpsons still consistently ranks #1 or #2 in its timeslot among teens, 18-34, and 18-49 demographics.
And a less scientific but still valid point is that among about a dozen of my younger cousins in the age range of 10-30 I don't know a single one who isn't a Simpsons fan.
I know plenty of people who watch the Simpsons with their kids - which is probably part of the reason it IS so popular among such a wide demographic after all these years...Do you really think a major publication like Playboy, a major network like Fox, and a major retail chain like 7-11 would launch a campaign like this without doing at least 30 seconds of trivial demographic research?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724315</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255341900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would've saved this for later as I'm still coming up with nifty things, but here is my oneliner:</p><p>find -mindepth 3 -name \*.rar | grep -v subs | grep -v part[0-9] | sort -R | sort -R | head -n 1 | sed -r 's/\<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/\\\<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/g' | xargs unrar e &amp;&amp; find -maxdepth 1 -name \*.ogm -or -name \*.avi | sed -r 's/\<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/\\\<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/g' | xargs mplayer -fs &amp;&amp; rm *.avi; rm *.ogm</p><p>I keep it safe somewhere in my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.bash\_history<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>Find all<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.rars at a depth of minimum 3 from the current path, removes all subs, all<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.rar files with part??.rar, sort the list randomly, do it again (had some problems with always getting the same one multiple times in a row, this fixed it -- might have been bad karma, might have been a bad algorithm, but haven't been bothered to remove it to check), take the first from the top, replace spaces with escaped spaces (to make xargs work), unrar using xargs (to current root), find the unpacked video file, replace spaces and play! After mplayer exits (but only with return 0!), remove all<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.avi or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ogm from the current folder.</p><p>If you need to limit it, do so after the first pipe, like this:</p><p>find -mindepth 3 -name \*.rar | grep S01 | grep -v subs | grep -v part[0-9] | sort -R | sort -R | head -n 1 | sed -r 's/\<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/\\\<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/g' | xargs unrar e &amp;&amp; find -maxdepth 1 -name \*.ogm -or -name \*.avi | sed -r 's/\<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/\\\<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/g' | xargs mplayer -fs &amp;&amp; rm *.avi; rm *.ogm</p><p>That's the reason for this way of having what you have in your script -- flexibility.</p><p>What do other people do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would 've saved this for later as I 'm still coming up with nifty things , but here is my oneliner : find -mindepth 3 -name \ * .rar | grep -v subs | grep -v part [ 0-9 ] | sort -R | sort -R | head -n 1 | sed -r 's/ \ / \ \ \ /g ' | xargs unrar e &amp;&amp; find -maxdepth 1 -name \ * .ogm -or -name \ * .avi | sed -r 's/ \ / \ \ \ /g ' | xargs mplayer -fs &amp;&amp; rm * .avi ; rm * .ogmI keep it safe somewhere in my .bash \ _history ; ) Find all .rars at a depth of minimum 3 from the current path , removes all subs , all .rar files with part ?
? .rar , sort the list randomly , do it again ( had some problems with always getting the same one multiple times in a row , this fixed it -- might have been bad karma , might have been a bad algorithm , but have n't been bothered to remove it to check ) , take the first from the top , replace spaces with escaped spaces ( to make xargs work ) , unrar using xargs ( to current root ) , find the unpacked video file , replace spaces and play !
After mplayer exits ( but only with return 0 !
) , remove all .avi or .ogm from the current folder.If you need to limit it , do so after the first pipe , like this : find -mindepth 3 -name \ * .rar | grep S01 | grep -v subs | grep -v part [ 0-9 ] | sort -R | sort -R | head -n 1 | sed -r 's/ \ / \ \ \ /g ' | xargs unrar e &amp;&amp; find -maxdepth 1 -name \ * .ogm -or -name \ * .avi | sed -r 's/ \ / \ \ \ /g ' | xargs mplayer -fs &amp;&amp; rm * .avi ; rm * .ogmThat 's the reason for this way of having what you have in your script -- flexibility.What do other people do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would've saved this for later as I'm still coming up with nifty things, but here is my oneliner:find -mindepth 3 -name \*.rar | grep -v subs | grep -v part[0-9] | sort -R | sort -R | head -n 1 | sed -r 's/\ /\\\ /g' | xargs unrar e &amp;&amp; find -maxdepth 1 -name \*.ogm -or -name \*.avi | sed -r 's/\ /\\\ /g' | xargs mplayer -fs &amp;&amp; rm *.avi; rm *.ogmI keep it safe somewhere in my .bash\_history ;)Find all .rars at a depth of minimum 3 from the current path, removes all subs, all .rar files with part?
?.rar, sort the list randomly, do it again (had some problems with always getting the same one multiple times in a row, this fixed it -- might have been bad karma, might have been a bad algorithm, but haven't been bothered to remove it to check), take the first from the top, replace spaces with escaped spaces (to make xargs work), unrar using xargs (to current root), find the unpacked video file, replace spaces and play!
After mplayer exits (but only with return 0!
), remove all .avi or .ogm from the current folder.If you need to limit it, do so after the first pipe, like this:find -mindepth 3 -name \*.rar | grep S01 | grep -v subs | grep -v part[0-9] | sort -R | sort -R | head -n 1 | sed -r 's/\ /\\\ /g' | xargs unrar e &amp;&amp; find -maxdepth 1 -name \*.ogm -or -name \*.avi | sed -r 's/\ /\\\ /g' | xargs mplayer -fs &amp;&amp; rm *.avi; rm *.ogmThat's the reason for this way of having what you have in your script -- flexibility.What do other people do?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724301</id>
	<title>Re:Wow . . .</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1255341840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The big fans are not 20-somethings anymore. We're 30- and 40-somethings.</p></div></blockquote><p>This story disturbs me in more ways than one. Look there's only one reason why things get put into Playboy magazine; so people can masturbate to them(while reading the articles). Not that they aren't entitled to. But this story is particularly creepy for three reasons.</p><p>1) Marge Simpson's image being in Playboy means that enough men find her(it?) sexually attractive enough for the magazine to give her a centrefold.<br>2) Given Playboy's demographic, most of these men (20-40), started watching the Simpson's 20 years ago.<br>3) Knowing this, the Producers of the Simpon's OK'd this publication.</p><p>I think I can officially say that I will probably never be able to watch that show again. This is one bridge too far, even for a show that sold itself out years ago. The idea of an entire demographic of Simpson's fans out there with the hots for Marge, a character from their children's TV shows, and the producers being willing to cater to them, is simply too perturbing a thought to take. This is even worse that that Princess Lei in the gold bikini thing. At least Lei wasn't married with three children!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The big fans are not 20-somethings anymore .
We 're 30- and 40-somethings.This story disturbs me in more ways than one .
Look there 's only one reason why things get put into Playboy magazine ; so people can masturbate to them ( while reading the articles ) .
Not that they are n't entitled to .
But this story is particularly creepy for three reasons.1 ) Marge Simpson 's image being in Playboy means that enough men find her ( it ?
) sexually attractive enough for the magazine to give her a centrefold.2 ) Given Playboy 's demographic , most of these men ( 20-40 ) , started watching the Simpson 's 20 years ago.3 ) Knowing this , the Producers of the Simpon 's OK 'd this publication.I think I can officially say that I will probably never be able to watch that show again .
This is one bridge too far , even for a show that sold itself out years ago .
The idea of an entire demographic of Simpson 's fans out there with the hots for Marge , a character from their children 's TV shows , and the producers being willing to cater to them , is simply too perturbing a thought to take .
This is even worse that that Princess Lei in the gold bikini thing .
At least Lei was n't married with three children !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big fans are not 20-somethings anymore.
We're 30- and 40-somethings.This story disturbs me in more ways than one.
Look there's only one reason why things get put into Playboy magazine; so people can masturbate to them(while reading the articles).
Not that they aren't entitled to.
But this story is particularly creepy for three reasons.1) Marge Simpson's image being in Playboy means that enough men find her(it?
) sexually attractive enough for the magazine to give her a centrefold.2) Given Playboy's demographic, most of these men (20-40), started watching the Simpson's 20 years ago.3) Knowing this, the Producers of the Simpon's OK'd this publication.I think I can officially say that I will probably never be able to watch that show again.
This is one bridge too far, even for a show that sold itself out years ago.
The idea of an entire demographic of Simpson's fans out there with the hots for Marge, a character from their children's TV shows, and the producers being willing to cater to them, is simply too perturbing a thought to take.
This is even worse that that Princess Lei in the gold bikini thing.
At least Lei wasn't married with three children!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29731259</id>
	<title>Show us the red carpet</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1255445700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of all the animated women to choose... huh?</p><p>I'd rather see Lois Griffin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of all the animated women to choose... huh ? I 'd rather see Lois Griffin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of all the animated women to choose... huh?I'd rather see Lois Griffin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721077</id>
	<title>Good luck with that</title>
	<author>Skyshadow</author>
	<datestamp>1255372500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm certain that this will convince all the 20-somethings out there who've been weaned on free internet hardcore to subscribe to Playboy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm certain that this will convince all the 20-somethings out there who 've been weaned on free internet hardcore to subscribe to Playboy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm certain that this will convince all the 20-somethings out there who've been weaned on free internet hardcore to subscribe to Playboy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29727161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29727053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29734075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29729075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29729707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29728411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29730271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29729461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723181
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29727215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29725869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29733883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29727251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29730173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29768083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29725885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721153
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29726159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29728361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29730591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1451201_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1451201.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722461
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1451201.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724587
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1451201.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724583
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1451201.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722207
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1451201.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721217
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1451201.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721619
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29728361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1451201.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721627
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1451201.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721207
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1451201.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29734075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722085
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723283
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1451201.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721231
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722671
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1451201.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723035
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1451201.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721691
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1451201.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721969
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1451201.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721539
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1451201.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722683
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1451201.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722115
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1451201.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722525
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1451201.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29720999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721455
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722519
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722095
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724783
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722007
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724131
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722983
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722801
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721953
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29729075
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724423
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723759
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722223
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722173
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29729707
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722517
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724315
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29725869
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724455
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724301
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29727161
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29729461
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29725885
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1451201.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1451201.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721243
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721809
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723957
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721679
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723967
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722195
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1451201.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723115
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1451201.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29728411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29730173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29727215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29724339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29730271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29733883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721427
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1451201.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29726159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29768083
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1451201.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29727053
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1451201.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29730591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29727251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29721345
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723181
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723191
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29723987
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1451201.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1451201.29722005
</commentlist>
</conversation>
