<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_12_1814241</id>
	<title>Blogger Loses Unemployment Check Because of Ads</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1255377360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Techdirt is reporting that one unfortunate, unemployed New York lawyer recently had her <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20091008/1927006467.shtml">unemployment benefits greatly reduced</a> because of the incredible $1/day she was earning via ads on her blog.  <i>"The whole thing sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare, with NY State asking her to get a form from her new 'employer' who didn't exist. Then NY Department of Labor started giving her all sorts of contradicting information, and eventually an 'investigation' into her 'business' &mdash; during which time her unemployment benefits were stopped entirely. She's now pulled the Google AdSense from her blog (total earned over the life of the blog $238.75)."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Techdirt is reporting that one unfortunate , unemployed New York lawyer recently had her unemployment benefits greatly reduced because of the incredible $ 1/day she was earning via ads on her blog .
" The whole thing sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare , with NY State asking her to get a form from her new 'employer ' who did n't exist .
Then NY Department of Labor started giving her all sorts of contradicting information , and eventually an 'investigation ' into her 'business '    during which time her unemployment benefits were stopped entirely .
She 's now pulled the Google AdSense from her blog ( total earned over the life of the blog $ 238.75 ) .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Techdirt is reporting that one unfortunate, unemployed New York lawyer recently had her unemployment benefits greatly reduced because of the incredible $1/day she was earning via ads on her blog.
"The whole thing sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare, with NY State asking her to get a form from her new 'employer' who didn't exist.
Then NY Department of Labor started giving her all sorts of contradicting information, and eventually an 'investigation' into her 'business' — during which time her unemployment benefits were stopped entirely.
She's now pulled the Google AdSense from her blog (total earned over the life of the blog $238.75).
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29727595</id>
	<title>Why work when you will lose money?</title>
	<author>RsJtSu</author>
	<datestamp>1255360200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had this happen to a friend of mine last year. They lost their modest paying job and was unemployed for about 6 months. They were offered a part-time job that would pay less than the benefits, but at least it would get them out of the house and working again and hopefully networking with people to find a new full time job. However, after they spoke with the unemployment office, they were informed that even though they would be making very little money, they would receive next to nothing in unemployment benefits. Just to give you an idea of how crappy this system is, they were getting a little over $250 a week on unemployment, with this part time job they would have been making around $150 a week plus paying taxes, gas, lunch, etc and unemployment would stop. Where is the incentive to find a job?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had this happen to a friend of mine last year .
They lost their modest paying job and was unemployed for about 6 months .
They were offered a part-time job that would pay less than the benefits , but at least it would get them out of the house and working again and hopefully networking with people to find a new full time job .
However , after they spoke with the unemployment office , they were informed that even though they would be making very little money , they would receive next to nothing in unemployment benefits .
Just to give you an idea of how crappy this system is , they were getting a little over $ 250 a week on unemployment , with this part time job they would have been making around $ 150 a week plus paying taxes , gas , lunch , etc and unemployment would stop .
Where is the incentive to find a job ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had this happen to a friend of mine last year.
They lost their modest paying job and was unemployed for about 6 months.
They were offered a part-time job that would pay less than the benefits, but at least it would get them out of the house and working again and hopefully networking with people to find a new full time job.
However, after they spoke with the unemployment office, they were informed that even though they would be making very little money, they would receive next to nothing in unemployment benefits.
Just to give you an idea of how crappy this system is, they were getting a little over $250 a week on unemployment, with this part time job they would have been making around $150 a week plus paying taxes, gas, lunch, etc and unemployment would stop.
Where is the incentive to find a job?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724037</id>
	<title>This is why we need Negative Income Tax</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255340700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With unemployment and welfare folded into one smooth curve, there're no perverse incentives and we don't have to pay an army of bureaucrats and lawyers to figure out who doesn't deserve assistance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With unemployment and welfare folded into one smooth curve , there 're no perverse incentives and we do n't have to pay an army of bureaucrats and lawyers to figure out who does n't deserve assistance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With unemployment and welfare folded into one smooth curve, there're no perverse incentives and we don't have to pay an army of bureaucrats and lawyers to figure out who doesn't deserve assistance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29728555</id>
	<title>Unemployment...Welfare....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255369020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps the solution is to just remove unemployment completely.  In my pretty large experience, the system is gamed by savvy leeches, and employers alike.  Honest workers, and honest employers don't really get much use out of it.  Potentially not eating is a good incentive to quit gaming the system, and just get a job, ANY job.  The use of government programs to prop up the poor, at the expense of the middle class was not in the original intent or design of our country.  The Great Depression brought much of these entitlements, and the subsequent recovery was supposed to mark the end of them.  Our government doesn't seem to be able to truly end any program past a certain size.</p><p>Perhaps if the government didn't give so many breaks to the ultra-rich, and the professionally poor, we could all be middle classed or above.  In such a scenario, human empathy would help those who -truly- were known to be in a bad way through something other than laziness.  I am certain that system could also be gamed, but only as far as our own generosity and kindness allowed.</p><p>I often wonder if many people are assholes specifically because we all pretty much know that you can only fall so far in this country, before some government program picks you up.  Perhaps we know this and therefore don't give a shit about anyone else, because we assume they are just gaming the system.</p><p>Think about it: What is your immediate thought when you hear about someone seeing an attorney  after an auto accident?  Is it " Damn, they must be having a tough time with the other guys/their own insurance" or is it "I wonder how much that fake neck pain is gonna get them.  Probably a year's salary...."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the solution is to just remove unemployment completely .
In my pretty large experience , the system is gamed by savvy leeches , and employers alike .
Honest workers , and honest employers do n't really get much use out of it .
Potentially not eating is a good incentive to quit gaming the system , and just get a job , ANY job .
The use of government programs to prop up the poor , at the expense of the middle class was not in the original intent or design of our country .
The Great Depression brought much of these entitlements , and the subsequent recovery was supposed to mark the end of them .
Our government does n't seem to be able to truly end any program past a certain size.Perhaps if the government did n't give so many breaks to the ultra-rich , and the professionally poor , we could all be middle classed or above .
In such a scenario , human empathy would help those who -truly- were known to be in a bad way through something other than laziness .
I am certain that system could also be gamed , but only as far as our own generosity and kindness allowed.I often wonder if many people are assholes specifically because we all pretty much know that you can only fall so far in this country , before some government program picks you up .
Perhaps we know this and therefore do n't give a shit about anyone else , because we assume they are just gaming the system.Think about it : What is your immediate thought when you hear about someone seeing an attorney after an auto accident ?
Is it " Damn , they must be having a tough time with the other guys/their own insurance " or is it " I wonder how much that fake neck pain is gon na get them .
Probably a year 's salary.... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the solution is to just remove unemployment completely.
In my pretty large experience, the system is gamed by savvy leeches, and employers alike.
Honest workers, and honest employers don't really get much use out of it.
Potentially not eating is a good incentive to quit gaming the system, and just get a job, ANY job.
The use of government programs to prop up the poor, at the expense of the middle class was not in the original intent or design of our country.
The Great Depression brought much of these entitlements, and the subsequent recovery was supposed to mark the end of them.
Our government doesn't seem to be able to truly end any program past a certain size.Perhaps if the government didn't give so many breaks to the ultra-rich, and the professionally poor, we could all be middle classed or above.
In such a scenario, human empathy would help those who -truly- were known to be in a bad way through something other than laziness.
I am certain that system could also be gamed, but only as far as our own generosity and kindness allowed.I often wonder if many people are assholes specifically because we all pretty much know that you can only fall so far in this country, before some government program picks you up.
Perhaps we know this and therefore don't give a shit about anyone else, because we assume they are just gaming the system.Think about it: What is your immediate thought when you hear about someone seeing an attorney  after an auto accident?
Is it " Damn, they must be having a tough time with the other guys/their own insurance" or is it "I wonder how much that fake neck pain is gonna get them.
Probably a year's salary...."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723499</id>
	<title>Re:Slow news day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255338960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Somebody explain to me how this is different from someone selling Avon, or selling at the local farmers' market, or moonlighting as a musician at the local dive bar, or any other similar wellspring of unemployment stupidity?</i></p><p>Fortunately, there is longstanding tax precedent on what constitutes a business and what constitutes a hobby. There are a number of tests to make this determination.</p><p>Normally it's the other way around, in that the taxpayer is claiming that they are running a legitimate business, and wants to write off lots of business expenses, and the IRS claims that this isn't a real business, and disallows the deductions.</p><p>Just apply the existing rules. No story here, except that it looks like the existing rules were misapplied.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody explain to me how this is different from someone selling Avon , or selling at the local farmers ' market , or moonlighting as a musician at the local dive bar , or any other similar wellspring of unemployment stupidity ? Fortunately , there is longstanding tax precedent on what constitutes a business and what constitutes a hobby .
There are a number of tests to make this determination.Normally it 's the other way around , in that the taxpayer is claiming that they are running a legitimate business , and wants to write off lots of business expenses , and the IRS claims that this is n't a real business , and disallows the deductions.Just apply the existing rules .
No story here , except that it looks like the existing rules were misapplied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody explain to me how this is different from someone selling Avon, or selling at the local farmers' market, or moonlighting as a musician at the local dive bar, or any other similar wellspring of unemployment stupidity?Fortunately, there is longstanding tax precedent on what constitutes a business and what constitutes a hobby.
There are a number of tests to make this determination.Normally it's the other way around, in that the taxpayer is claiming that they are running a legitimate business, and wants to write off lots of business expenses, and the IRS claims that this isn't a real business, and disallows the deductions.Just apply the existing rules.
No story here, except that it looks like the existing rules were misapplied.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724215</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255341480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes, speaking from experience, you are fucked.   if they find out.   which they will eventually it might take years but they will come back after you to try and recover the &ldquo;unemployment funds you stole from them&rdquo;.</p><p>good luck.</p><p>it is not the unemployment office&rsquo;s job to find you work, it is their job to figure out how to stop giving you money any way possible and they have an unlimited number of excuses to not give you money.</p><p>this is why there are reports in some news of &ldquo;the real unemployment rate is&rdquo;</p><p>the only people the system really works for are the truly stupid and the truly dishonest.</p><p>disclaimer: i am &lsquo;self-employed&rsquo;, have been for 7+ years.  i can&rsquo;t put any money into unemployment insurance, which saves me a bit, but i will never get a dime out either no matter how unemployed i might be i will never be part of the statistics.   i&rsquo;m considered employed, no matter how much money i bleed, until i get a W-2 job and get laid off from it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes , speaking from experience , you are fucked .
if they find out .
which they will eventually it might take years but they will come back after you to try and recover the    unemployment funds you stole from them    .good luck.it is not the unemployment office    s job to find you work , it is their job to figure out how to stop giving you money any way possible and they have an unlimited number of excuses to not give you money.this is why there are reports in some news of    the real unemployment rate is    the only people the system really works for are the truly stupid and the truly dishonest.disclaimer : i am    self-employed    , have been for 7 + years .
i can    t put any money into unemployment insurance , which saves me a bit , but i will never get a dime out either no matter how unemployed i might be i will never be part of the statistics .
i    m considered employed , no matter how much money i bleed , until i get a W-2 job and get laid off from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes, speaking from experience, you are fucked.
if they find out.
which they will eventually it might take years but they will come back after you to try and recover the “unemployment funds you stole from them”.good luck.it is not the unemployment office’s job to find you work, it is their job to figure out how to stop giving you money any way possible and they have an unlimited number of excuses to not give you money.this is why there are reports in some news of “the real unemployment rate is”the only people the system really works for are the truly stupid and the truly dishonest.disclaimer: i am ‘self-employed’, have been for 7+ years.
i can’t put any money into unemployment insurance, which saves me a bit, but i will never get a dime out either no matter how unemployed i might be i will never be part of the statistics.
i’m considered employed, no matter how much money i bleed, until i get a W-2 job and get laid off from it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724805</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1255344000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I wonder if selling used games and videos on ebay constitutes income?</p></div></blockquote><p>No, that's capital gains.<br> <br>It needs to be reported, but not as regular income.  And as you mentioned, it was at a loss (but probably not, once depreciation is figured in).  If you're moving a lot of stuff, hire a tax accountant.  Sounds like you're just moving a few odds-and-ends... in which case, check with your state unemployment office.  You can always call anonymously...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if selling used games and videos on ebay constitutes income ? No , that 's capital gains .
It needs to be reported , but not as regular income .
And as you mentioned , it was at a loss ( but probably not , once depreciation is figured in ) .
If you 're moving a lot of stuff , hire a tax accountant .
Sounds like you 're just moving a few odds-and-ends... in which case , check with your state unemployment office .
You can always call anonymously.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if selling used games and videos on ebay constitutes income?No, that's capital gains.
It needs to be reported, but not as regular income.
And as you mentioned, it was at a loss (but probably not, once depreciation is figured in).
If you're moving a lot of stuff, hire a tax accountant.
Sounds like you're just moving a few odds-and-ends... in which case, check with your state unemployment office.
You can always call anonymously...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723381</id>
	<title>Horay government</title>
	<author>ArsonSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1255338360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't wait until they run Healthcare can you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't wait until they run Healthcare can you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't wait until they run Healthcare can you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29727185</id>
	<title>been there done that</title>
	<author>nilbog</author>
	<datestamp>1255357080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been on unemployment.  You supposed to report the amount that you earn from any other work during the time you are being paid.  Basically the state says "okay we figure you need X to survive per month" and then gives you X and subtracts any other money you've made during that time.</p><p>It's really not that difficult.  The key is to fill out the paperwork and follow the instructions.  If you get actual people involved in that process you're bound to screw it up.</p><p>If you really want to, pay your hosting bill with the money you made from adsense, and then you have no income to report.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been on unemployment .
You supposed to report the amount that you earn from any other work during the time you are being paid .
Basically the state says " okay we figure you need X to survive per month " and then gives you X and subtracts any other money you 've made during that time.It 's really not that difficult .
The key is to fill out the paperwork and follow the instructions .
If you get actual people involved in that process you 're bound to screw it up.If you really want to , pay your hosting bill with the money you made from adsense , and then you have no income to report .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been on unemployment.
You supposed to report the amount that you earn from any other work during the time you are being paid.
Basically the state says "okay we figure you need X to survive per month" and then gives you X and subtracts any other money you've made during that time.It's really not that difficult.
The key is to fill out the paperwork and follow the instructions.
If you get actual people involved in that process you're bound to screw it up.If you really want to, pay your hosting bill with the money you made from adsense, and then you have no income to report.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723897</id>
	<title>Re:Is it really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255340220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmmm... let's see... you used "underfunded" and "government" in the same sentence. <br> <br>

We should know by now that our government is almost always ill-equipped to perform their job, throwing money at it hasn't done a thing to fix it, except create a monstrous debt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm... let 's see... you used " underfunded " and " government " in the same sentence .
We should know by now that our government is almost always ill-equipped to perform their job , throwing money at it has n't done a thing to fix it , except create a monstrous debt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm... let's see... you used "underfunded" and "government" in the same sentence.
We should know by now that our government is almost always ill-equipped to perform their job, throwing money at it hasn't done a thing to fix it, except create a monstrous debt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723711</id>
	<title>Re:Horay government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255339620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"What do ya mean you can't give me a colon exam?"<br>"You're only 25 - come back when you're 40."<br>"But my dad died of colon cancer when he was only 24, and my brother got it when he was only in his thirties."<br>"Too bad.  The government has to cut costs."</p><p>Later I develop colon cancer at age 26.  (This is based on an actual story from the UK where the "NICE" organization routinely denies preventative medicine, and a citizen developed cancer at a young age which could have been prevented.)</p><p>BTW -</p><p>- when I asked my HMO for a colon exam age 30, the doctor said it's not necessary but gave it to me anyway - only cost me $20.  Who says HMOs are not customer friendly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" What do ya mean you ca n't give me a colon exam ?
" " You 're only 25 - come back when you 're 40 .
" " But my dad died of colon cancer when he was only 24 , and my brother got it when he was only in his thirties .
" " Too bad .
The government has to cut costs .
" Later I develop colon cancer at age 26 .
( This is based on an actual story from the UK where the " NICE " organization routinely denies preventative medicine , and a citizen developed cancer at a young age which could have been prevented .
) BTW -- when I asked my HMO for a colon exam age 30 , the doctor said it 's not necessary but gave it to me anyway - only cost me $ 20 .
Who says HMOs are not customer friendly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What do ya mean you can't give me a colon exam?
""You're only 25 - come back when you're 40.
""But my dad died of colon cancer when he was only 24, and my brother got it when he was only in his thirties.
""Too bad.
The government has to cut costs.
"Later I develop colon cancer at age 26.
(This is based on an actual story from the UK where the "NICE" organization routinely denies preventative medicine, and a citizen developed cancer at a young age which could have been prevented.
)BTW -- when I asked my HMO for a colon exam age 30, the doctor said it's not necessary but gave it to me anyway - only cost me $20.
Who says HMOs are not customer friendly?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724213</id>
	<title>Re:Horay government</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1255341480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"What do ya mean you can't give me a colon exam?"<br>"You're only 25 - come back when you're 40."<br>"But my dad died of colon cancer when he was only 24, and my brother got it when he was only in his thirties."<br>"Too bad.  The government has to cut costs."</p><p>Later I develop colon cancer at age 26.  (This is based on an actual story from the UK where the "NICE" organization routinely denies preventative medicine, and a citizen developed cancer at a young age which could have been prevented.)</p><p>BTW -</p><p>- when I asked my HMO for a colon exam age 30, the doctor said it's not necessary but gave it to me anyway - only cost me $20.  Who says HMOs are not customer friendly?</p></div><p>That's all well and good...  But it doesn't really mean anything.</p><p>I'm sorry the anecdotal cancer victim didn't get his colonoscopy when he needed it.  And I'm glad you did get one when you asked for it.</p><p>But here in the US we've got plenty of people of all ages who can't get any kind of medical treatment - regardless of whether they just <i>want</i> it or if they genuinely <i>need</i> it.</p><p>If you've got a million people who die because the waiting list is too long or because the manual says no colonoscopy until 40...  And I've got a million people who die because they can't get treatment at all...  I don't see where you're any worse off than I am.</p><p>A lot of the opponents of the current attempt to "reform" healthcare in the US like to point out these horrible tragedies from other countries with government-run medicine...  But I'm just not impressed.  We've got plenty of tragedies here on our own soil.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" What do ya mean you ca n't give me a colon exam ?
" " You 're only 25 - come back when you 're 40 .
" " But my dad died of colon cancer when he was only 24 , and my brother got it when he was only in his thirties .
" " Too bad .
The government has to cut costs .
" Later I develop colon cancer at age 26 .
( This is based on an actual story from the UK where the " NICE " organization routinely denies preventative medicine , and a citizen developed cancer at a young age which could have been prevented .
) BTW -- when I asked my HMO for a colon exam age 30 , the doctor said it 's not necessary but gave it to me anyway - only cost me $ 20 .
Who says HMOs are not customer friendly ? That 's all well and good... But it does n't really mean anything.I 'm sorry the anecdotal cancer victim did n't get his colonoscopy when he needed it .
And I 'm glad you did get one when you asked for it.But here in the US we 've got plenty of people of all ages who ca n't get any kind of medical treatment - regardless of whether they just want it or if they genuinely need it.If you 've got a million people who die because the waiting list is too long or because the manual says no colonoscopy until 40... And I 've got a million people who die because they ca n't get treatment at all... I do n't see where you 're any worse off than I am.A lot of the opponents of the current attempt to " reform " healthcare in the US like to point out these horrible tragedies from other countries with government-run medicine... But I 'm just not impressed .
We 've got plenty of tragedies here on our own soil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What do ya mean you can't give me a colon exam?
""You're only 25 - come back when you're 40.
""But my dad died of colon cancer when he was only 24, and my brother got it when he was only in his thirties.
""Too bad.
The government has to cut costs.
"Later I develop colon cancer at age 26.
(This is based on an actual story from the UK where the "NICE" organization routinely denies preventative medicine, and a citizen developed cancer at a young age which could have been prevented.
)BTW -- when I asked my HMO for a colon exam age 30, the doctor said it's not necessary but gave it to me anyway - only cost me $20.
Who says HMOs are not customer friendly?That's all well and good...  But it doesn't really mean anything.I'm sorry the anecdotal cancer victim didn't get his colonoscopy when he needed it.
And I'm glad you did get one when you asked for it.But here in the US we've got plenty of people of all ages who can't get any kind of medical treatment - regardless of whether they just want it or if they genuinely need it.If you've got a million people who die because the waiting list is too long or because the manual says no colonoscopy until 40...  And I've got a million people who die because they can't get treatment at all...  I don't see where you're any worse off than I am.A lot of the opponents of the current attempt to "reform" healthcare in the US like to point out these horrible tragedies from other countries with government-run medicine...  But I'm just not impressed.
We've got plenty of tragedies here on our own soil.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723321</id>
	<title>So the big question is:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255338120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is $1/day unemployed? In some parts of the world you can actually make due with that.</p><p>I think he just has a really crappy job and should quit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is $ 1/day unemployed ?
In some parts of the world you can actually make due with that.I think he just has a really crappy job and should quit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is $1/day unemployed?
In some parts of the world you can actually make due with that.I think he just has a really crappy job and should quit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29730573</id>
	<title>Re:Nevada is suing me for back unemployment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255440900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me get this straight. You created a company, presumable, with yourself as the sole owner/employee. Thus making you employed REGARDLESS OF THE SUCCESS OF THE COMPANY. You then claimed you were unemployed (e.g. you lied). And now you're pissed that they caught you?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/\. needs a FACEPALM moderation</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me get this straight .
You created a company , presumable , with yourself as the sole owner/employee .
Thus making you employed REGARDLESS OF THE SUCCESS OF THE COMPANY .
You then claimed you were unemployed ( e.g .
you lied ) .
And now you 're pissed that they caught you ?
/ \ . needs a FACEPALM moderation</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me get this straight.
You created a company, presumable, with yourself as the sole owner/employee.
Thus making you employed REGARDLESS OF THE SUCCESS OF THE COMPANY.
You then claimed you were unemployed (e.g.
you lied).
And now you're pissed that they caught you?
/\. needs a FACEPALM moderation</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724373</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>SirWhoopass</author>
	<datestamp>1255342200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That depends entirely on the particular state.</p><p>In Minnesota, you could turn around after that one-month temporary job and receive benefits from the first job (assuming you did not already exhaust them). Also, part-time work will reduce benefits dollar-for-dollar until you exceed 32 hours a week (or make more money from part-time work than you'd receive on unemployment).</p><p>As you point out, the real problem here is a system with idiotic rules, not her honesty in reporting $238.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That depends entirely on the particular state.In Minnesota , you could turn around after that one-month temporary job and receive benefits from the first job ( assuming you did not already exhaust them ) .
Also , part-time work will reduce benefits dollar-for-dollar until you exceed 32 hours a week ( or make more money from part-time work than you 'd receive on unemployment ) .As you point out , the real problem here is a system with idiotic rules , not her honesty in reporting $ 238 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That depends entirely on the particular state.In Minnesota, you could turn around after that one-month temporary job and receive benefits from the first job (assuming you did not already exhaust them).
Also, part-time work will reduce benefits dollar-for-dollar until you exceed 32 hours a week (or make more money from part-time work than you'd receive on unemployment).As you point out, the real problem here is a system with idiotic rules, not her honesty in reporting $238.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724973</id>
	<title>Re:Nevada is suing me for back unemployment</title>
	<author>LanMan04</author>
	<datestamp>1255344780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I one instant I just went from "moderate democrat" to "conservative republican", too. Interesting.</p></div><p>So your brain fell out during the incident?  Boy, that must have hurt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I one instant I just went from " moderate democrat " to " conservative republican " , too .
Interesting.So your brain fell out during the incident ?
Boy , that must have hurt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I one instant I just went from "moderate democrat" to "conservative republican", too.
Interesting.So your brain fell out during the incident?
Boy, that must have hurt.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724477</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>obarel</author>
	<datestamp>1255342560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And leave that penny on the floor...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And leave that penny on the floor.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And leave that penny on the floor...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724303</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255341840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't even know what sort of lawyer would deal with this kind of law.</p></div></blockquote><p>Hey, I do know one with good experience with this kind of law. She currently lives in St. Louis, Mo., and is a former New York resident. And she's actually looking for a job, by the way<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't even know what sort of lawyer would deal with this kind of law.Hey , I do know one with good experience with this kind of law .
She currently lives in St. Louis , Mo. , and is a former New York resident .
And she 's actually looking for a job , by the way .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't even know what sort of lawyer would deal with this kind of law.Hey, I do know one with good experience with this kind of law.
She currently lives in St. Louis, Mo., and is a former New York resident.
And she's actually looking for a job, by the way ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29729151</id>
	<title>I thought Australia was bad</title>
	<author>conufsed</author>
	<datestamp>1255464060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been unemployed before, but wasn't this bad.

You get a form once per fortnight to fill, where have you applied for work, and related questions, as well as how much did you earn?

If you've been unemployed for a while you build up kind of credit system where you may not get your benefits reduced at all.

The other good part is you keep getting the forms for about 2 months of earning 'too much' before your officially cut off. So if you get a temp job picking fruit or whatever, as long as your income drops back off before the forms finish, everything keeps going without any hassle.

Don't get me started of the rest of Centrelink though!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been unemployed before , but was n't this bad .
You get a form once per fortnight to fill , where have you applied for work , and related questions , as well as how much did you earn ?
If you 've been unemployed for a while you build up kind of credit system where you may not get your benefits reduced at all .
The other good part is you keep getting the forms for about 2 months of earning 'too much ' before your officially cut off .
So if you get a temp job picking fruit or whatever , as long as your income drops back off before the forms finish , everything keeps going without any hassle .
Do n't get me started of the rest of Centrelink though !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been unemployed before, but wasn't this bad.
You get a form once per fortnight to fill, where have you applied for work, and related questions, as well as how much did you earn?
If you've been unemployed for a while you build up kind of credit system where you may not get your benefits reduced at all.
The other good part is you keep getting the forms for about 2 months of earning 'too much' before your officially cut off.
So if you get a temp job picking fruit or whatever, as long as your income drops back off before the forms finish, everything keeps going without any hassle.
Don't get me started of the rest of Centrelink though!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724633</id>
	<title>Re:Also work with disability pay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255343220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is she single?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is she single ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is she single?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724463</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1255342560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference between the homeless guy holding a sign and the woman with a blog, is that the woman with a blog has a legal contract with Google that reports income on a 1099 form that Unemployment and the Government can check for income.</p><p>If she held up a sign in the streets that said "Will do legal work for food/change." and she had a solicitor's license she would earn food and cash, and earning cash for payment is one form of income the government and unemployment cannot track. She is legally supposed to report any income she receives even in cash, but many just work for cash off the books and still collect unemployment. Just that you cannot do that with a legal contract with Google that gives you a 1099 tax form that reports income on and the contract says you are self-employed and Google is paying you as a contractor for your web advertising with them.</p><p>The Homeless man has no contract and no 1099 form, so he could earn a million dollars in cash and the government would not even know it, unless he reported it. But I doubt many homeless men earn more than $300 a year or month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference between the homeless guy holding a sign and the woman with a blog , is that the woman with a blog has a legal contract with Google that reports income on a 1099 form that Unemployment and the Government can check for income.If she held up a sign in the streets that said " Will do legal work for food/change .
" and she had a solicitor 's license she would earn food and cash , and earning cash for payment is one form of income the government and unemployment can not track .
She is legally supposed to report any income she receives even in cash , but many just work for cash off the books and still collect unemployment .
Just that you can not do that with a legal contract with Google that gives you a 1099 tax form that reports income on and the contract says you are self-employed and Google is paying you as a contractor for your web advertising with them.The Homeless man has no contract and no 1099 form , so he could earn a million dollars in cash and the government would not even know it , unless he reported it .
But I doubt many homeless men earn more than $ 300 a year or month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference between the homeless guy holding a sign and the woman with a blog, is that the woman with a blog has a legal contract with Google that reports income on a 1099 form that Unemployment and the Government can check for income.If she held up a sign in the streets that said "Will do legal work for food/change.
" and she had a solicitor's license she would earn food and cash, and earning cash for payment is one form of income the government and unemployment cannot track.
She is legally supposed to report any income she receives even in cash, but many just work for cash off the books and still collect unemployment.
Just that you cannot do that with a legal contract with Google that gives you a 1099 tax form that reports income on and the contract says you are self-employed and Google is paying you as a contractor for your web advertising with them.The Homeless man has no contract and no 1099 form, so he could earn a million dollars in cash and the government would not even know it, unless he reported it.
But I doubt many homeless men earn more than $300 a year or month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723845</id>
	<title>self employed</title>
	<author>ico2</author>
	<datestamp>1255340040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If she'd registered as self employed, it would've worked out fine.<br><br>you'd think a lawyer would know that...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If she 'd registered as self employed , it would 've worked out fine.you 'd think a lawyer would know that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If she'd registered as self employed, it would've worked out fine.you'd think a lawyer would know that...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723629</id>
	<title>Re:Horay government</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1255339380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Can't wait until they run Healthcare can you?</i>They already do -- ever heard of Medicare? In fact, some of the loudest objections to the "Public Option" are from people who believe it will reduce the quality of the Government sponsored healthcare they already receive! Fucking greedy hypocrites!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't wait until they run Healthcare can you ? They already do -- ever heard of Medicare ?
In fact , some of the loudest objections to the " Public Option " are from people who believe it will reduce the quality of the Government sponsored healthcare they already receive !
Fucking greedy hypocrites !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't wait until they run Healthcare can you?They already do -- ever heard of Medicare?
In fact, some of the loudest objections to the "Public Option" are from people who believe it will reduce the quality of the Government sponsored healthcare they already receive!
Fucking greedy hypocrites!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723593</id>
	<title>Adding Insult to Injury</title>
	<author>jcoy42</author>
	<datestamp>1255339260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And so, after removing the ads from her blog (they weren't really earning much money anyway) slashdot decided to mention it on the front page..</p><p>I bet she's thrilled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And so , after removing the ads from her blog ( they were n't really earning much money anyway ) slashdot decided to mention it on the front page..I bet she 's thrilled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And so, after removing the ads from her blog (they weren't really earning much money anyway) slashdot decided to mention it on the front page..I bet she's thrilled.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725175</id>
	<title>Re:Horay government</title>
	<author>SBFCOblivion</author>
	<datestamp>1255345740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure why this is marked as troll.</p><p>I get the biggest kick out of the <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/\_E8NKm2xDr5Y/Srohu8VS9mI/AAAAAAAAAPQ/ZcaucqOvXlg/s400/Don't+steal+from+medicare+to+support+socialized+medicine" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">pro-medicare, anti-national health care</a> [blogspot.com] people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure why this is marked as troll.I get the biggest kick out of the pro-medicare , anti-national health care [ blogspot.com ] people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure why this is marked as troll.I get the biggest kick out of the pro-medicare, anti-national health care [blogspot.com] people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29734627</id>
	<title>This is why...</title>
	<author>GWBasic</author>
	<datestamp>1255460940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why I keep personal and hobby web sites 100\% non-commercial.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I keep personal and hobby web sites 100 \ % non-commercial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I keep personal and hobby web sites 100\% non-commercial.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723615</id>
	<title>Re:Horay government</title>
	<author>Critical Facilities</author>
	<datestamp>1255339380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As if our <a href="http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/142811/americans\_pay\_more\_to\_die\_earlier\_--\_why\_is\_our\_health\_care\_system\_so\_screwed\_up/?page=entire" title="alternet.org">current system</a> [alternet.org] is just spectacular,  huh?</htmltext>
<tokenext>As if our current system [ alternet.org ] is just spectacular , huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As if our current system [alternet.org] is just spectacular,  huh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723671</id>
	<title>Re:An Unemployed... Lawyer?</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1255339500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hard for me to understand how a *lawyer* can be unemployed. Harder still for me to understand how an unemployed lawyer is unable to cut through the government red tape and related BS...  but then again, perhaps that's why she is currently unemployed.</p><p>I do wish her well, though...</p></div><p>Not unusual - a lot of firms cut staff recently; one WSJ article with a prominent attorney said he was concerned that we a re producing far more lawyers than will ever get hired in the future, and he felt mny law students would never really recoup the cost of their education.</p><p>As for the red tape, knowing the law can be of very little use, especially when dealing with bureaucrats who have done the job for years and simply don't care what you think the law is; they've been doing it like this for years.  Piss them off?  Opps, your file is missing a key form.  Please send it in again (so I can shred it). Threaten to sue?  Go ahead, it'll be years before you get a verdict. </p><p>
P&gt;Not all are like that, but unfortunately the system can simply grind you down with no discernible impact on the system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hard for me to understand how a * lawyer * can be unemployed .
Harder still for me to understand how an unemployed lawyer is unable to cut through the government red tape and related BS... but then again , perhaps that 's why she is currently unemployed.I do wish her well , though...Not unusual - a lot of firms cut staff recently ; one WSJ article with a prominent attorney said he was concerned that we a re producing far more lawyers than will ever get hired in the future , and he felt mny law students would never really recoup the cost of their education.As for the red tape , knowing the law can be of very little use , especially when dealing with bureaucrats who have done the job for years and simply do n't care what you think the law is ; they 've been doing it like this for years .
Piss them off ?
Opps , your file is missing a key form .
Please send it in again ( so I can shred it ) .
Threaten to sue ?
Go ahead , it 'll be years before you get a verdict .
P &gt; Not all are like that , but unfortunately the system can simply grind you down with no discernible impact on the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hard for me to understand how a *lawyer* can be unemployed.
Harder still for me to understand how an unemployed lawyer is unable to cut through the government red tape and related BS...  but then again, perhaps that's why she is currently unemployed.I do wish her well, though...Not unusual - a lot of firms cut staff recently; one WSJ article with a prominent attorney said he was concerned that we a re producing far more lawyers than will ever get hired in the future, and he felt mny law students would never really recoup the cost of their education.As for the red tape, knowing the law can be of very little use, especially when dealing with bureaucrats who have done the job for years and simply don't care what you think the law is; they've been doing it like this for years.
Piss them off?
Opps, your file is missing a key form.
Please send it in again (so I can shred it).
Threaten to sue?
Go ahead, it'll be years before you get a verdict.
P&gt;Not all are like that, but unfortunately the system can simply grind you down with no discernible impact on the system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723869</id>
	<title>Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255340160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>depends the type.</p><p>cash tight companies are very reluctant to settle right now.  This means lots of money being spent on trials.  This is boom times for litigation consulting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>depends the type.cash tight companies are very reluctant to settle right now .
This means lots of money being spent on trials .
This is boom times for litigation consulting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>depends the type.cash tight companies are very reluctant to settle right now.
This means lots of money being spent on trials.
This is boom times for litigation consulting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29734493</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>Slashdot Parent</author>
	<datestamp>1255460400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Business owners are exempt from unemployment pay.  This lawyer's $1 a month income could be considered a poorly-run business but still a business.</p></div><p>This is not true, or at the very least, not true in every state.  I pay unemployment insurance premiums on (a tiny fraction of) my salary, and if I ever shutter my business, I am legally entitled to collect unemployment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Business owners are exempt from unemployment pay .
This lawyer 's $ 1 a month income could be considered a poorly-run business but still a business.This is not true , or at the very least , not true in every state .
I pay unemployment insurance premiums on ( a tiny fraction of ) my salary , and if I ever shutter my business , I am legally entitled to collect unemployment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Business owners are exempt from unemployment pay.
This lawyer's $1 a month income could be considered a poorly-run business but still a business.This is not true, or at the very least, not true in every state.
I pay unemployment insurance premiums on (a tiny fraction of) my salary, and if I ever shutter my business, I am legally entitled to collect unemployment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725325</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>baegucb</author>
	<datestamp>1255346520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've heard of a lawyer in New York who specializes in these type of issues. Dunno if she's licensed in your state though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've heard of a lawyer in New York who specializes in these type of issues .
Dunno if she 's licensed in your state though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've heard of a lawyer in New York who specializes in these type of issues.
Dunno if she's licensed in your state though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724413</id>
	<title>Re:Slow news day</title>
	<author>Joe Snipe</author>
	<datestamp>1255342320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was <a href="http://www.oddtodd.com/dept5.html" title="oddtodd.com">this guy's</a> [oddtodd.com] argument was and he won his fight.  Same state even.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was this guy 's [ oddtodd.com ] argument was and he won his fight .
Same state even .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was this guy's [oddtodd.com] argument was and he won his fight.
Same state even.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29732163</id>
	<title>Missing URI</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255449960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't help wondering why it is that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. didn't give the URI for her blog in their story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't help wondering why it is that / .
did n't give the URI for her blog in their story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't help wondering why it is that /.
didn't give the URI for her blog in their story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723467</id>
	<title>Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255338780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>She's a woman and she's not Jewish.  If <b>I'm</b> getting a New York lawyer, he'd better either be a man or cute enough to sway court opinion.  And in New York, the Jews are the way to go.</p><p>AC obviously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She 's a woman and she 's not Jewish .
If I 'm getting a New York lawyer , he 'd better either be a man or cute enough to sway court opinion .
And in New York , the Jews are the way to go.AC obviously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She's a woman and she's not Jewish.
If I'm getting a New York lawyer, he'd better either be a man or cute enough to sway court opinion.
And in New York, the Jews are the way to go.AC obviously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725919</id>
	<title>So sad</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1255349520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hang on, who TOLD them about the blog ? <br>Self inflicted I'm afraid. I recently played the game here in the UK and declared 3 days work I had done in the previous 2 weeks (Thur, Fri and following Mon). Their response ? Oh, Well our week runs from signing day to signing day (Tue) so that means you have to sign off. Great. so much for being honest. Last fucking time. (BTW, declaring work done means you get no money but don't have to spend 3 weeks re-signing on and waiting a month for money to live on) - tl; dr; don't work for agencies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hang on , who TOLD them about the blog ?
Self inflicted I 'm afraid .
I recently played the game here in the UK and declared 3 days work I had done in the previous 2 weeks ( Thur , Fri and following Mon ) .
Their response ?
Oh , Well our week runs from signing day to signing day ( Tue ) so that means you have to sign off .
Great. so much for being honest .
Last fucking time .
( BTW , declaring work done means you get no money but do n't have to spend 3 weeks re-signing on and waiting a month for money to live on ) - tl ; dr ; do n't work for agencies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hang on, who TOLD them about the blog ?
Self inflicted I'm afraid.
I recently played the game here in the UK and declared 3 days work I had done in the previous 2 weeks (Thur, Fri and following Mon).
Their response ?
Oh, Well our week runs from signing day to signing day (Tue) so that means you have to sign off.
Great. so much for being honest.
Last fucking time.
(BTW, declaring work done means you get no money but don't have to spend 3 weeks re-signing on and waiting a month for money to live on) - tl; dr; don't work for agencies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725127</id>
	<title>Re:Big Government</title>
	<author>Planesdragon</author>
	<datestamp>1255345560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They decided, for her, that the money she was collecting was sufficient to live on...</p> </div><p>No, they didn't.  Unemployment insurance is NOT welfare.  The labor dept in this case did exactly what they were supposed to -- enforce the law as written.</p><p>The law is crazy and dumb, but that's not the Labor Dept's fault.  It's the legislature's.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It will be worse when the government passes universal healthcare coverage. Under the current proposals, they will tell you whether you're insurance is sufficient, and if not, will fine you for not having the proper coverage. Eventually, as government continues it's reckless spending, more and more people will be told their coverage is insufficient as they try to cover the increasing debt. Then, you will decide to get the best coverage available so you won't be fined, and that will result in being taxed for having a "luxury" plan.</p></div><p>This would be BETTER and LESS WASTEFUL if we actually had a real welfare state -- the gov't guarantees a rock-bottom standard of living for everyone (food + shelter + healthcare), and every dollar you make beyond that is progressively taxed until you're supporting  yourself.  (progressive: very little \% tax on the 1st dollar, slightly increasing \% tax on the last dollar.  You know, like how the system works now until about 250,000.)  Why are we wasting our nation's wealth in shifting this woman from "unemployment" to "welfare", anyway?  Send her a check, tell her to go volunteer if we need to, and ever, ever, EVER take a dollar away from her for a dollar she earns.</p><p>If you want to go full bore SMART, we could even abolish the minimum wage and require complete portability of employer-provided healthcare benefits, to untether the market from our social engineering  The republicans SHOULD be making these last two proposals -- but since they're focused on scare tacticsk they aren't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They decided , for her , that the money she was collecting was sufficient to live on... No , they did n't .
Unemployment insurance is NOT welfare .
The labor dept in this case did exactly what they were supposed to -- enforce the law as written.The law is crazy and dumb , but that 's not the Labor Dept 's fault .
It 's the legislature 's.It will be worse when the government passes universal healthcare coverage .
Under the current proposals , they will tell you whether you 're insurance is sufficient , and if not , will fine you for not having the proper coverage .
Eventually , as government continues it 's reckless spending , more and more people will be told their coverage is insufficient as they try to cover the increasing debt .
Then , you will decide to get the best coverage available so you wo n't be fined , and that will result in being taxed for having a " luxury " plan.This would be BETTER and LESS WASTEFUL if we actually had a real welfare state -- the gov't guarantees a rock-bottom standard of living for everyone ( food + shelter + healthcare ) , and every dollar you make beyond that is progressively taxed until you 're supporting yourself .
( progressive : very little \ % tax on the 1st dollar , slightly increasing \ % tax on the last dollar .
You know , like how the system works now until about 250,000 .
) Why are we wasting our nation 's wealth in shifting this woman from " unemployment " to " welfare " , anyway ?
Send her a check , tell her to go volunteer if we need to , and ever , ever , EVER take a dollar away from her for a dollar she earns.If you want to go full bore SMART , we could even abolish the minimum wage and require complete portability of employer-provided healthcare benefits , to untether the market from our social engineering The republicans SHOULD be making these last two proposals -- but since they 're focused on scare tacticsk they are n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They decided, for her, that the money she was collecting was sufficient to live on... No, they didn't.
Unemployment insurance is NOT welfare.
The labor dept in this case did exactly what they were supposed to -- enforce the law as written.The law is crazy and dumb, but that's not the Labor Dept's fault.
It's the legislature's.It will be worse when the government passes universal healthcare coverage.
Under the current proposals, they will tell you whether you're insurance is sufficient, and if not, will fine you for not having the proper coverage.
Eventually, as government continues it's reckless spending, more and more people will be told their coverage is insufficient as they try to cover the increasing debt.
Then, you will decide to get the best coverage available so you won't be fined, and that will result in being taxed for having a "luxury" plan.This would be BETTER and LESS WASTEFUL if we actually had a real welfare state -- the gov't guarantees a rock-bottom standard of living for everyone (food + shelter + healthcare), and every dollar you make beyond that is progressively taxed until you're supporting  yourself.
(progressive: very little \% tax on the 1st dollar, slightly increasing \% tax on the last dollar.
You know, like how the system works now until about 250,000.
)  Why are we wasting our nation's wealth in shifting this woman from "unemployment" to "welfare", anyway?
Send her a check, tell her to go volunteer if we need to, and ever, ever, EVER take a dollar away from her for a dollar she earns.If you want to go full bore SMART, we could even abolish the minimum wage and require complete portability of employer-provided healthcare benefits, to untether the market from our social engineering  The republicans SHOULD be making these last two proposals -- but since they're focused on scare tacticsk they aren't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724161</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>Bakkster</author>
	<datestamp>1255341240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I feel like I'm pointing out the elephant in the living room here, but wtf is up with a <b>lawyer</b> collecting unemployment checks?  <b>That</b> is the dickish behavior.  Unemployment insurance is supposed to be for people on hard times due to losing their jobs.  When you make as much as a lawyer does, you should be doing something called "saving money" -- it shouldn't be much of a hardship for you, given that part-time elected officials (such as in state legislatures that don't work the full year) tend to be lawyers <b>because</b> they can so easily take a lot of unpaid time off from work.</p></div><p>Since the summary is poorly written and you didn't RTFA (of course):
</p><p>She was just out of college, and this was her first law job.  She worked there for 6 months and then was laid off. Unable to afford rent in NYC, she had moved and was looking for work out of state (it is legal to collect from NYC because it was her place of last employment).  That's exactly who unemployment is supposed to help.<br>
She did <strong>not</strong> own a firm, was <strong>not</strong> using this to collect money for a sabbatical, and does <strong>not</strong> have another job lined up.
</p><p>Your complaints are valid issues with the system, but not for this particular person.  This is probably the bigger problem: people who really do need unemployment getting disqualified for strange reasons, despite still not being employed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel like I 'm pointing out the elephant in the living room here , but wtf is up with a lawyer collecting unemployment checks ?
That is the dickish behavior .
Unemployment insurance is supposed to be for people on hard times due to losing their jobs .
When you make as much as a lawyer does , you should be doing something called " saving money " -- it should n't be much of a hardship for you , given that part-time elected officials ( such as in state legislatures that do n't work the full year ) tend to be lawyers because they can so easily take a lot of unpaid time off from work.Since the summary is poorly written and you did n't RTFA ( of course ) : She was just out of college , and this was her first law job .
She worked there for 6 months and then was laid off .
Unable to afford rent in NYC , she had moved and was looking for work out of state ( it is legal to collect from NYC because it was her place of last employment ) .
That 's exactly who unemployment is supposed to help .
She did not own a firm , was not using this to collect money for a sabbatical , and does not have another job lined up .
Your complaints are valid issues with the system , but not for this particular person .
This is probably the bigger problem : people who really do need unemployment getting disqualified for strange reasons , despite still not being employed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel like I'm pointing out the elephant in the living room here, but wtf is up with a lawyer collecting unemployment checks?
That is the dickish behavior.
Unemployment insurance is supposed to be for people on hard times due to losing their jobs.
When you make as much as a lawyer does, you should be doing something called "saving money" -- it shouldn't be much of a hardship for you, given that part-time elected officials (such as in state legislatures that don't work the full year) tend to be lawyers because they can so easily take a lot of unpaid time off from work.Since the summary is poorly written and you didn't RTFA (of course):
She was just out of college, and this was her first law job.
She worked there for 6 months and then was laid off.
Unable to afford rent in NYC, she had moved and was looking for work out of state (it is legal to collect from NYC because it was her place of last employment).
That's exactly who unemployment is supposed to help.
She did not own a firm, was not using this to collect money for a sabbatical, and does not have another job lined up.
Your complaints are valid issues with the system, but not for this particular person.
This is probably the bigger problem: people who really do need unemployment getting disqualified for strange reasons, despite still not being employed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723441</id>
	<title>Re:Slow news day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255338600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you're saying that you should be denied unemployment for fixing a friend's or family member's PCs on the side?  Any hobby that happens to break even or make a small net profit?  How about charity work?  After all you *could* be getting paid for it, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're saying that you should be denied unemployment for fixing a friend 's or family member 's PCs on the side ?
Any hobby that happens to break even or make a small net profit ?
How about charity work ?
After all you * could * be getting paid for it , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're saying that you should be denied unemployment for fixing a friend's or family member's PCs on the side?
Any hobby that happens to break even or make a small net profit?
How about charity work?
After all you *could* be getting paid for it, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29727333</id>
	<title>Unemployment screws small business</title>
	<author>witherstaff</author>
	<datestamp>1255358280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another way Unemployment screws business owners. I agree that there should be some method to help a person between jobs. But unemployment as it exists is so wrong it should be scrapped and started fresh. Everytime an employee draws it hits the company. I agree with this if it's a fire, if it's a voluntary quit we're paying for someone not wanting to work. Things I have personally seen from the business employer side in the last few years<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:</p><ul>
<li>Employee doesn't show up one morning,  can't be reached, doesn't even tell the live in girlfriend he apparently quit - he still 'goes to work' every morning. After girlfriend stops in the office a week later she discovers he must have quit. A year later he files to draw unemployment. We notify them there is a job waiting for him. Told that since he has moved to another state he couldn't work, he still receives unemployment.</li><li>Employee quits a full time, year around job, and goes to work for a seasonal job. End of the season comes and  he files and receives unemployment.</li></ul><p>
People wonder why jobs are outsourced? I hire a contract overseas and I don't have to worry about staffing issues or ex employees costing the company when they quit and don't want to work. Or why small businesses are dying. Oftentimes the small business owner stops paying themselves first to keep things going. Once things get really slow they're really out of luck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another way Unemployment screws business owners .
I agree that there should be some method to help a person between jobs .
But unemployment as it exists is so wrong it should be scrapped and started fresh .
Everytime an employee draws it hits the company .
I agree with this if it 's a fire , if it 's a voluntary quit we 're paying for someone not wanting to work .
Things I have personally seen from the business employer side in the last few years : Employee does n't show up one morning , ca n't be reached , does n't even tell the live in girlfriend he apparently quit - he still 'goes to work ' every morning .
After girlfriend stops in the office a week later she discovers he must have quit .
A year later he files to draw unemployment .
We notify them there is a job waiting for him .
Told that since he has moved to another state he could n't work , he still receives unemployment.Employee quits a full time , year around job , and goes to work for a seasonal job .
End of the season comes and he files and receives unemployment .
People wonder why jobs are outsourced ?
I hire a contract overseas and I do n't have to worry about staffing issues or ex employees costing the company when they quit and do n't want to work .
Or why small businesses are dying .
Oftentimes the small business owner stops paying themselves first to keep things going .
Once things get really slow they 're really out of luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another way Unemployment screws business owners.
I agree that there should be some method to help a person between jobs.
But unemployment as it exists is so wrong it should be scrapped and started fresh.
Everytime an employee draws it hits the company.
I agree with this if it's a fire, if it's a voluntary quit we're paying for someone not wanting to work.
Things I have personally seen from the business employer side in the last few years :
Employee doesn't show up one morning,  can't be reached, doesn't even tell the live in girlfriend he apparently quit - he still 'goes to work' every morning.
After girlfriend stops in the office a week later she discovers he must have quit.
A year later he files to draw unemployment.
We notify them there is a job waiting for him.
Told that since he has moved to another state he couldn't work, he still receives unemployment.Employee quits a full time, year around job, and goes to work for a seasonal job.
End of the season comes and  he files and receives unemployment.
People wonder why jobs are outsourced?
I hire a contract overseas and I don't have to worry about staffing issues or ex employees costing the company when they quit and don't want to work.
Or why small businesses are dying.
Oftentimes the small business owner stops paying themselves first to keep things going.
Once things get really slow they're really out of luck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724651</id>
	<title>Umm... duh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255343280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, duh. That's how unemployment works: if you earn any money at all during a week, your benefits are reduced by at least that amount (maybe more, depending on things like how many hours you worked). Anybody who's had to deal with working short-term jobs while collecting unemployment knows this headache well. Yes, that means that it's not in your best interest to have any income <i>at all</i> while trying to collect unemployment, unless that income's more (after taxes and such) than your unemployment benefits. This leads to an unpleasant balancing act trying to meet the "looked for N jobs this week" requirement while not getting stuck with a job that'll only last a couple of days and won't pay enough to make up for the lost benefits.</p><p>All I can say to this lawyer is, welcome to the world most people have to deal with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , duh .
That 's how unemployment works : if you earn any money at all during a week , your benefits are reduced by at least that amount ( maybe more , depending on things like how many hours you worked ) .
Anybody who 's had to deal with working short-term jobs while collecting unemployment knows this headache well .
Yes , that means that it 's not in your best interest to have any income at all while trying to collect unemployment , unless that income 's more ( after taxes and such ) than your unemployment benefits .
This leads to an unpleasant balancing act trying to meet the " looked for N jobs this week " requirement while not getting stuck with a job that 'll only last a couple of days and wo n't pay enough to make up for the lost benefits.All I can say to this lawyer is , welcome to the world most people have to deal with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, duh.
That's how unemployment works: if you earn any money at all during a week, your benefits are reduced by at least that amount (maybe more, depending on things like how many hours you worked).
Anybody who's had to deal with working short-term jobs while collecting unemployment knows this headache well.
Yes, that means that it's not in your best interest to have any income at all while trying to collect unemployment, unless that income's more (after taxes and such) than your unemployment benefits.
This leads to an unpleasant balancing act trying to meet the "looked for N jobs this week" requirement while not getting stuck with a job that'll only last a couple of days and won't pay enough to make up for the lost benefits.All I can say to this lawyer is, welcome to the world most people have to deal with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724959</id>
	<title>Re:Slow news day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255344720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is different than the things you mention because even working at McDonalds would bring in more than $1 a day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is different than the things you mention because even working at McDonalds would bring in more than $ 1 a day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is different than the things you mention because even working at McDonalds would bring in more than $1 a day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29726721</id>
	<title>KING NIGGER</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255353780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Way to go unemployment services. I had this guy as a lawyer once, he got me screwed over horribly and I had to spend 20 years in prison with a guy named bubba.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Way to go unemployment services .
I had this guy as a lawyer once , he got me screwed over horribly and I had to spend 20 years in prison with a guy named bubba .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Way to go unemployment services.
I had this guy as a lawyer once, he got me screwed over horribly and I had to spend 20 years in prison with a guy named bubba.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723703</id>
	<title>Re:So the big question is:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255339560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We all know that nobody on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. reads TFA. But it is an interesting new trend that some don't even read the fscking summary anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know that nobody on / .
reads TFA .
But it is an interesting new trend that some do n't even read the fscking summary anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know that nobody on /.
reads TFA.
But it is an interesting new trend that some don't even read the fscking summary anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724447</id>
	<title>Re:Adding Insult to Injury</title>
	<author>Dogtanian</author>
	<datestamp>1255342500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And so, after removing the ads from her blog (they weren't really earning much money anyway) slashdot decided to mention it on the front page..</p><p>I bet she's thrilled.</p></div><p>I suspect that even among those not running adblock- or at least Flashblock- Slashdotters are among those least likely to click adverts anyway.</p><p>I very rarely click on adverts and may *once* have bought something as a result of one (I feel guilty about clicking them if I'm 99\% sure that I'm not going to buy the thing they're advertising anyway).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And so , after removing the ads from her blog ( they were n't really earning much money anyway ) slashdot decided to mention it on the front page..I bet she 's thrilled.I suspect that even among those not running adblock- or at least Flashblock- Slashdotters are among those least likely to click adverts anyway.I very rarely click on adverts and may * once * have bought something as a result of one ( I feel guilty about clicking them if I 'm 99 \ % sure that I 'm not going to buy the thing they 're advertising anyway ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And so, after removing the ads from her blog (they weren't really earning much money anyway) slashdot decided to mention it on the front page..I bet she's thrilled.I suspect that even among those not running adblock- or at least Flashblock- Slashdotters are among those least likely to click adverts anyway.I very rarely click on adverts and may *once* have bought something as a result of one (I feel guilty about clicking them if I'm 99\% sure that I'm not going to buy the thing they're advertising anyway).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723593</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724343</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255342020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm currently collecting unemployment and working a part time job.  In Minnesota, they take 55\% of your gross earnings from your job, deduct that from what you would get for unemployment and pay you the rest of your unemployment.  After taxes, I'm making about $3/hr at my job, but it will extend my unemployment benifits until I can get a full time job.  All you have to do is work less than 32 hours a week and you can still collect.  At least some states have it right!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm currently collecting unemployment and working a part time job .
In Minnesota , they take 55 \ % of your gross earnings from your job , deduct that from what you would get for unemployment and pay you the rest of your unemployment .
After taxes , I 'm making about $ 3/hr at my job , but it will extend my unemployment benifits until I can get a full time job .
All you have to do is work less than 32 hours a week and you can still collect .
At least some states have it right !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm currently collecting unemployment and working a part time job.
In Minnesota, they take 55\% of your gross earnings from your job, deduct that from what you would get for unemployment and pay you the rest of your unemployment.
After taxes, I'm making about $3/hr at my job, but it will extend my unemployment benifits until I can get a full time job.
All you have to do is work less than 32 hours a week and you can still collect.
At least some states have it right!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724421</id>
	<title>Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255342380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't this a good thing for the rest of us?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this a good thing for the rest of us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this a good thing for the rest of us?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301</id>
	<title>The state is correct</title>
	<author>Antiocheian</author>
	<datestamp>1255338060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unemployment benefits are meant to help people with no income.</p><p>Others are getting much more than $238 through web ads. Should they be running for unemployment benefits too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unemployment benefits are meant to help people with no income.Others are getting much more than $ 238 through web ads .
Should they be running for unemployment benefits too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unemployment benefits are meant to help people with no income.Others are getting much more than $238 through web ads.
Should they be running for unemployment benefits too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723329</id>
	<title>Slow news day</title>
	<author>bzzfzz</author>
	<datestamp>1255338120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somebody explain to me how this is different from someone selling Avon, or selling at the local farmers' market, or moonlighting as a musician at the local dive bar, or any other similar wellspring of unemployment stupidity?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somebody explain to me how this is different from someone selling Avon , or selling at the local farmers ' market , or moonlighting as a musician at the local dive bar , or any other similar wellspring of unemployment stupidity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somebody explain to me how this is different from someone selling Avon, or selling at the local farmers' market, or moonlighting as a musician at the local dive bar, or any other similar wellspring of unemployment stupidity?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724797</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>evil\_aar0n</author>
	<datestamp>1255343940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I once applied for unemployment and had this dour man tell me about all sorts of things that would disqualify me from unemployment if I did them, and I remember laughing at him, at some point, just because of the extreme ridiculousness of some of their stipulations.  He said, very matter of factly, that it was no laughing matter; they would, at the very least, stop my benefits, among other things, if they found out that I engaged in any of those things.  Simple things like work an hour a week, or whatever it was at the time.</p><p>I would take this seriously, and contact a labor lawyer.  It shouldn't be hard to find one.  At worst, you can call any local law office and they can probably recommend someone, if they don't do it themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I once applied for unemployment and had this dour man tell me about all sorts of things that would disqualify me from unemployment if I did them , and I remember laughing at him , at some point , just because of the extreme ridiculousness of some of their stipulations .
He said , very matter of factly , that it was no laughing matter ; they would , at the very least , stop my benefits , among other things , if they found out that I engaged in any of those things .
Simple things like work an hour a week , or whatever it was at the time.I would take this seriously , and contact a labor lawyer .
It should n't be hard to find one .
At worst , you can call any local law office and they can probably recommend someone , if they do n't do it themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once applied for unemployment and had this dour man tell me about all sorts of things that would disqualify me from unemployment if I did them, and I remember laughing at him, at some point, just because of the extreme ridiculousness of some of their stipulations.
He said, very matter of factly, that it was no laughing matter; they would, at the very least, stop my benefits, among other things, if they found out that I engaged in any of those things.
Simple things like work an hour a week, or whatever it was at the time.I would take this seriously, and contact a labor lawyer.
It shouldn't be hard to find one.
At worst, you can call any local law office and they can probably recommend someone, if they don't do it themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724601</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255343100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Note that what you describe (reducing benefits by the amount of part-time wages earned) is exactly what Ohio does. Not sure if any other states work like that...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that what you describe ( reducing benefits by the amount of part-time wages earned ) is exactly what Ohio does .
Not sure if any other states work like that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that what you describe (reducing benefits by the amount of part-time wages earned) is exactly what Ohio does.
Not sure if any other states work like that...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723791</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255339860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Others are getting much more than $238 through web ads. Should they be running for unemployment benefits too?</i>

</p><p>Don't be such a dumbass.  All they had to do was deduct $238 from one of her checks, but there's no option to do that with unemployment.  The second you report any income, regardless of the source, you're employed.  So if you take a contract job and get let go a month later, not only does unemployment stop paying you but then they'll turn around and claim you haven't been on the new job long enough to collect benefits.  Too bad, buddy. You can't even collect the balance of benefits you were due.

</p><p>So there's is absolutely zero incentive for people on unemployment to take what work they can find.  If they would encourage people to take part-time and temporary jobs, deducting what they make from their benefit check so they don't lose money working, but restoring their benefits if those jobs fall through, then more people would be out working.

</p><p>But the system we have today punishes people trying to do the right thing.  Don't defend a broken system.  They could use unemployment to encourage people go out and start a business, instead they discriminate against people wanting to work but unable to find a permanent job that lasts longer than 3 months.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Others are getting much more than $ 238 through web ads .
Should they be running for unemployment benefits too ?
Do n't be such a dumbass .
All they had to do was deduct $ 238 from one of her checks , but there 's no option to do that with unemployment .
The second you report any income , regardless of the source , you 're employed .
So if you take a contract job and get let go a month later , not only does unemployment stop paying you but then they 'll turn around and claim you have n't been on the new job long enough to collect benefits .
Too bad , buddy .
You ca n't even collect the balance of benefits you were due .
So there 's is absolutely zero incentive for people on unemployment to take what work they can find .
If they would encourage people to take part-time and temporary jobs , deducting what they make from their benefit check so they do n't lose money working , but restoring their benefits if those jobs fall through , then more people would be out working .
But the system we have today punishes people trying to do the right thing .
Do n't defend a broken system .
They could use unemployment to encourage people go out and start a business , instead they discriminate against people wanting to work but unable to find a permanent job that lasts longer than 3 months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Others are getting much more than $238 through web ads.
Should they be running for unemployment benefits too?
Don't be such a dumbass.
All they had to do was deduct $238 from one of her checks, but there's no option to do that with unemployment.
The second you report any income, regardless of the source, you're employed.
So if you take a contract job and get let go a month later, not only does unemployment stop paying you but then they'll turn around and claim you haven't been on the new job long enough to collect benefits.
Too bad, buddy.
You can't even collect the balance of benefits you were due.
So there's is absolutely zero incentive for people on unemployment to take what work they can find.
If they would encourage people to take part-time and temporary jobs, deducting what they make from their benefit check so they don't lose money working, but restoring their benefits if those jobs fall through, then more people would be out working.
But the system we have today punishes people trying to do the right thing.
Don't defend a broken system.
They could use unemployment to encourage people go out and start a business, instead they discriminate against people wanting to work but unable to find a permanent job that lasts longer than 3 months.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1255338600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Business owners are exempt from unemployment pay.  This lawyer's $1 a month income could be considered a poorly-run business but still a business.  <b>  What I'm curious to know is who reported her.  </b>  Sounds like a real dick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Business owners are exempt from unemployment pay .
This lawyer 's $ 1 a month income could be considered a poorly-run business but still a business .
What I 'm curious to know is who reported her .
Sounds like a real dick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Business owners are exempt from unemployment pay.
This lawyer's $1 a month income could be considered a poorly-run business but still a business.
What I'm curious to know is who reported her.
Sounds like a real dick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725365</id>
	<title>Re:Nevada is suing me for back unemployment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255346640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I one instant I just went from "moderate democrat" to "conservative republican", too. Interesting.</p></div><p>Given how incredibly conservative Nevada is, I find that an amazingly ironic statement.  Your "conservative republican" buddies have already done well by you, it seems.</p><p>As someone who has known many folks, myself included, who have benefited (i.e. avoided being completely screwed over by layoffs, etc) from having unemployment support<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..  I think this is a damned stupid statement.  Your state has some bureaucratic asshattery going on.  That's reason to fix matters, not dump out the baby with the bathwater.  Look to other states for models that suck less.  Or maybe just move to one.  In my state (WA), I'm fairly certain the unemployment insurance system is structured so that the blogger in TFA wouldn't have had any cuts at all (or at most that ~ $1/day).</p><p>These benefits enable people to support their families, keep them from becoming homeless, keep some people from entering a downward spiral of poverty, and enables them to reenter and remain a productive part of the workforce.  Does it stop all financial damage?  Hell no, not in the USA anyways.  But it helps out a lot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I one instant I just went from " moderate democrat " to " conservative republican " , too .
Interesting.Given how incredibly conservative Nevada is , I find that an amazingly ironic statement .
Your " conservative republican " buddies have already done well by you , it seems.As someone who has known many folks , myself included , who have benefited ( i.e .
avoided being completely screwed over by layoffs , etc ) from having unemployment support .. I think this is a damned stupid statement .
Your state has some bureaucratic asshattery going on .
That 's reason to fix matters , not dump out the baby with the bathwater .
Look to other states for models that suck less .
Or maybe just move to one .
In my state ( WA ) , I 'm fairly certain the unemployment insurance system is structured so that the blogger in TFA would n't have had any cuts at all ( or at most that ~ $ 1/day ) .These benefits enable people to support their families , keep them from becoming homeless , keep some people from entering a downward spiral of poverty , and enables them to reenter and remain a productive part of the workforce .
Does it stop all financial damage ?
Hell no , not in the USA anyways .
But it helps out a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I one instant I just went from "moderate democrat" to "conservative republican", too.
Interesting.Given how incredibly conservative Nevada is, I find that an amazingly ironic statement.
Your "conservative republican" buddies have already done well by you, it seems.As someone who has known many folks, myself included, who have benefited (i.e.
avoided being completely screwed over by layoffs, etc) from having unemployment support ..  I think this is a damned stupid statement.
Your state has some bureaucratic asshattery going on.
That's reason to fix matters, not dump out the baby with the bathwater.
Look to other states for models that suck less.
Or maybe just move to one.
In my state (WA), I'm fairly certain the unemployment insurance system is structured so that the blogger in TFA wouldn't have had any cuts at all (or at most that ~ $1/day).These benefits enable people to support their families, keep them from becoming homeless, keep some people from entering a downward spiral of poverty, and enables them to reenter and remain a productive part of the workforce.
Does it stop all financial damage?
Hell no, not in the USA anyways.
But it helps out a lot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29728741</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>BradMajors</author>
	<datestamp>1255371420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually business owners are not exempt from unemployment pay.</p><p>To collect unemployment you must been terminated from employment.  If the business owner owned a business and was also terminated from employment and his business was not making any money he could collect unemployment.</p><p>I have a sole proprietorship, and I have collected unemployment while I did not have employment and my sole proprietorship made no money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually business owners are not exempt from unemployment pay.To collect unemployment you must been terminated from employment .
If the business owner owned a business and was also terminated from employment and his business was not making any money he could collect unemployment.I have a sole proprietorship , and I have collected unemployment while I did not have employment and my sole proprietorship made no money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually business owners are not exempt from unemployment pay.To collect unemployment you must been terminated from employment.
If the business owner owned a business and was also terminated from employment and his business was not making any money he could collect unemployment.I have a sole proprietorship, and I have collected unemployment while I did not have employment and my sole proprietorship made no money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723837</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255339980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmmm.</p><p>I wonder if selling used games and videos on ebay constitutes income?  I could probably argue "I paid $20 but only sold it for $10, so that's a loss not an income," but a lot of hassle.  Maybe I won't be doing my annual Christmas clean-out/sale after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmmm.I wonder if selling used games and videos on ebay constitutes income ?
I could probably argue " I paid $ 20 but only sold it for $ 10 , so that 's a loss not an income , " but a lot of hassle .
Maybe I wo n't be doing my annual Christmas clean-out/sale after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmmm.I wonder if selling used games and videos on ebay constitutes income?
I could probably argue "I paid $20 but only sold it for $10, so that's a loss not an income," but a lot of hassle.
Maybe I won't be doing my annual Christmas clean-out/sale after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723999</id>
	<title>Her blog</title>
	<author>Drummergeek0</author>
	<datestamp>1255340520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For anyone interested in what and where the blog in question is: <a href="http://stlmealdeals.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://stlmealdeals.blogspot.com/</a> [blogspot.com].  It is not law related, it has to do with restaurant deals in the St Louis area which is where she recently relocated to.

Reference: <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/stl-jobwatch/uncategorized/2009/10/re-located-to-st-louis-nyc-lawyer-learns-the-price-of-honesty/" title="stltoday.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/stl-jobwatch/uncategorized/2009/10/re-located-to-st-louis-nyc-lawyer-learns-the-price-of-honesty/</a> [stltoday.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>For anyone interested in what and where the blog in question is : http : //stlmealdeals.blogspot.com/ [ blogspot.com ] .
It is not law related , it has to do with restaurant deals in the St Louis area which is where she recently relocated to .
Reference : http : //www.stltoday.com/blogzone/stl-jobwatch/uncategorized/2009/10/re-located-to-st-louis-nyc-lawyer-learns-the-price-of-honesty/ [ stltoday.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For anyone interested in what and where the blog in question is: http://stlmealdeals.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com].
It is not law related, it has to do with restaurant deals in the St Louis area which is where she recently relocated to.
Reference: http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/stl-jobwatch/uncategorized/2009/10/re-located-to-st-louis-nyc-lawyer-learns-the-price-of-honesty/ [stltoday.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29726661</id>
	<title>It's even worse in Sweden</title>
	<author>narooze</author>
	<datestamp>1255353480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here in Sweden a blogger (without any income from the blog at all) got the verdict that blogging is an occupation and therefore he must either quit blogging or loose his unemployment check.</p><p><a href="http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/arbetslos-bloggare-kraver-besked-om-a-kassa-1.842969" title="www.dn.se" rel="nofollow">http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/arbetslos-bloggare-kraver-besked-om-a-kassa-1.842969</a> [www.dn.se]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in Sweden a blogger ( without any income from the blog at all ) got the verdict that blogging is an occupation and therefore he must either quit blogging or loose his unemployment check.http : //www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/arbetslos-bloggare-kraver-besked-om-a-kassa-1.842969 [ www.dn.se ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in Sweden a blogger (without any income from the blog at all) got the verdict that blogging is an occupation and therefore he must either quit blogging or loose his unemployment check.http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/arbetslos-bloggare-kraver-besked-om-a-kassa-1.842969 [www.dn.se]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29730345</id>
	<title>Re:Horay government</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1255438740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>A truly civilized nation doesn't let one neighbor swipe money from other neighbors' wallets.    </b>    You don't have a right to force your neighbors to pay for your new Lexus.  You don't have a right to make your neighbors pay for your new HDTV.  Neither do you have a right to make your neighbors pay for your liposuction health bill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A truly civilized nation does n't let one neighbor swipe money from other neighbors ' wallets .
You do n't have a right to force your neighbors to pay for your new Lexus .
You do n't have a right to make your neighbors pay for your new HDTV .
Neither do you have a right to make your neighbors pay for your liposuction health bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A truly civilized nation doesn't let one neighbor swipe money from other neighbors' wallets.
You don't have a right to force your neighbors to pay for your new Lexus.
You don't have a right to make your neighbors pay for your new HDTV.
Neither do you have a right to make your neighbors pay for your liposuction health bill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723357</id>
	<title>State beauracrats are usually idiots..</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1255338300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I once got threatening letters from the state of Iowa claiming I didn't pay my taxes.</p><p>They didn't stop until I sent them a copy of my check that they had cashed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I once got threatening letters from the state of Iowa claiming I did n't pay my taxes.They did n't stop until I sent them a copy of my check that they had cashed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once got threatening letters from the state of Iowa claiming I didn't pay my taxes.They didn't stop until I sent them a copy of my check that they had cashed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724017</id>
	<title>Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps....</title>
	<author>jeffshoaf</author>
	<datestamp>1255340580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the lawyer explosion</p></div><p>

Now there's something you could sell tickets to!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the lawyer explosion Now there 's something you could sell tickets to !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the lawyer explosion

Now there's something you could sell tickets to!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723675</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29734877</id>
	<title>Re:Nevada is suing me for back unemployment</title>
	<author>Slashdot Parent</author>
	<datestamp>1255462080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For what it's worth, you did not need to organize an LLC to receive a 1099.  In fact, companies don't receive 1099s at all.  1099s are only for individuals.</p><p>Good luck in your job search!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For what it 's worth , you did not need to organize an LLC to receive a 1099 .
In fact , companies do n't receive 1099s at all .
1099s are only for individuals.Good luck in your job search !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For what it's worth, you did not need to organize an LLC to receive a 1099.
In fact, companies don't receive 1099s at all.
1099s are only for individuals.Good luck in your job search!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29729641</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>Antiocheian</author>
	<datestamp>1255429020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree on the point that this income is next to nothing, so I would have handled it differently by registering the ad revenue to an employed friend or a relative and then subtract their additional taxation.</p><p>I just said that the state should not provide benefits to those with an income because this can be twisted to the loss of taxpayers.</p><p>I think my comment was taken in a wrong way by some: of course she wasn't treated justly -- but I do see the reasoning of the state and I believe she can easily solve this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree on the point that this income is next to nothing , so I would have handled it differently by registering the ad revenue to an employed friend or a relative and then subtract their additional taxation.I just said that the state should not provide benefits to those with an income because this can be twisted to the loss of taxpayers.I think my comment was taken in a wrong way by some : of course she was n't treated justly -- but I do see the reasoning of the state and I believe she can easily solve this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree on the point that this income is next to nothing, so I would have handled it differently by registering the ad revenue to an employed friend or a relative and then subtract their additional taxation.I just said that the state should not provide benefits to those with an income because this can be twisted to the loss of taxpayers.I think my comment was taken in a wrong way by some: of course she wasn't treated justly -- but I do see the reasoning of the state and I believe she can easily solve this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724393</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>sribe</author>
	<datestamp>1255342260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So if you take a contract job and get let go a month later, not only does unemployment stop paying you but then they'll turn around and claim you haven't been on the new job long enough to collect benefits. Too bad, buddy. You can't even collect the balance of benefits you were due.</p></div><p>You, and the people who find your post insightful, should realize that unemployment regulations vary from state to state. Colorado, for instance, is far more rational than what you describe, coming close in several aspects to how you say it should work. (BTW, I agree with your post, just pointing out that not all states are so stupid!)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if you take a contract job and get let go a month later , not only does unemployment stop paying you but then they 'll turn around and claim you have n't been on the new job long enough to collect benefits .
Too bad , buddy .
You ca n't even collect the balance of benefits you were due.You , and the people who find your post insightful , should realize that unemployment regulations vary from state to state .
Colorado , for instance , is far more rational than what you describe , coming close in several aspects to how you say it should work .
( BTW , I agree with your post , just pointing out that not all states are so stupid !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if you take a contract job and get let go a month later, not only does unemployment stop paying you but then they'll turn around and claim you haven't been on the new job long enough to collect benefits.
Too bad, buddy.
You can't even collect the balance of benefits you were due.You, and the people who find your post insightful, should realize that unemployment regulations vary from state to state.
Colorado, for instance, is far more rational than what you describe, coming close in several aspects to how you say it should work.
(BTW, I agree with your post, just pointing out that not all states are so stupid!
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724991</id>
	<title>Re:Well, all are illegal...</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1255344900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, you have a sideline that will never in a zillion years even pay for one trip to the grocery store, much less your rent/mortgage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you have a sideline that will never in a zillion years even pay for one trip to the grocery store , much less your rent/mortgage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you have a sideline that will never in a zillion years even pay for one trip to the grocery store, much less your rent/mortgage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723511</id>
	<title>Everybody, let's</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255339020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everybody, let's all locate her blog and click on her ads out of the kindness of our hearts and to show that we support her.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody , let 's all locate her blog and click on her ads out of the kindness of our hearts and to show that we support her .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody, let's all locate her blog and click on her ads out of the kindness of our hearts and to show that we support her.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724015</id>
	<title>Re:State beauracrats are usually idiots..</title>
	<author>value\_added</author>
	<datestamp>1255340580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I once got threatening letters from the state of Iowa claiming I didn't pay my taxes.  They didn't stop until I sent them a copy of my check that they had cashed.</i></p><p>True story.</p><p>I once received a speeding ticket for $120 (going 65 in a 55 while trying to get away from a tractor trailer who was speeding and swerving into my lane).  Paid the fine, and called it a day.</p><p>A few months pass and I receive a Failure to Appear notice.  Not wanting to be arrested, I show up in court at 9:00 am as instructed with my bank statement and a copy of the cancelled check.  Around 11:00 am I get to present my documentation to the bailiff and am told that I must wait while the matter is investigated.  Around 4:00 pm, the judge calls on me and proceeds to tell me that the Court has no record of my payment, and that a cancelled check is not proof of anything.  I'm fined $350.</p><p>Sitting the entire day in court I listened to people (many of whom were repeat offenders) lie their asses off and get reduced fines (typically in the $100-200 range) or nothing at all.  Me, I've never been arrested and it was the only moving violation I'd received during 20 years of driving, yet I received one of the largest fines of the day.</p><p>Moral of the story?  There isn't one.  Moral issues have no relevance to people concerned with the functioning of the bureaucracies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I once got threatening letters from the state of Iowa claiming I did n't pay my taxes .
They did n't stop until I sent them a copy of my check that they had cashed.True story.I once received a speeding ticket for $ 120 ( going 65 in a 55 while trying to get away from a tractor trailer who was speeding and swerving into my lane ) .
Paid the fine , and called it a day.A few months pass and I receive a Failure to Appear notice .
Not wanting to be arrested , I show up in court at 9 : 00 am as instructed with my bank statement and a copy of the cancelled check .
Around 11 : 00 am I get to present my documentation to the bailiff and am told that I must wait while the matter is investigated .
Around 4 : 00 pm , the judge calls on me and proceeds to tell me that the Court has no record of my payment , and that a cancelled check is not proof of anything .
I 'm fined $ 350.Sitting the entire day in court I listened to people ( many of whom were repeat offenders ) lie their asses off and get reduced fines ( typically in the $ 100-200 range ) or nothing at all .
Me , I 've never been arrested and it was the only moving violation I 'd received during 20 years of driving , yet I received one of the largest fines of the day.Moral of the story ?
There is n't one .
Moral issues have no relevance to people concerned with the functioning of the bureaucracies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once got threatening letters from the state of Iowa claiming I didn't pay my taxes.
They didn't stop until I sent them a copy of my check that they had cashed.True story.I once received a speeding ticket for $120 (going 65 in a 55 while trying to get away from a tractor trailer who was speeding and swerving into my lane).
Paid the fine, and called it a day.A few months pass and I receive a Failure to Appear notice.
Not wanting to be arrested, I show up in court at 9:00 am as instructed with my bank statement and a copy of the cancelled check.
Around 11:00 am I get to present my documentation to the bailiff and am told that I must wait while the matter is investigated.
Around 4:00 pm, the judge calls on me and proceeds to tell me that the Court has no record of my payment, and that a cancelled check is not proof of anything.
I'm fined $350.Sitting the entire day in court I listened to people (many of whom were repeat offenders) lie their asses off and get reduced fines (typically in the $100-200 range) or nothing at all.
Me, I've never been arrested and it was the only moving violation I'd received during 20 years of driving, yet I received one of the largest fines of the day.Moral of the story?
There isn't one.
Moral issues have no relevance to people concerned with the functioning of the bureaucracies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29726511</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>luke\_francis2000</author>
	<datestamp>1255352640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why I love the Australian system. I have never had to use it yet, however, </p><p>
1) If you are unemployed there are already rules in place to cover small income, via an <a href="http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/newstart\_iat.htm" title="centrelink.gov.au" rel="nofollow"> Income test </a> [centrelink.gov.au], regardless of how the income was generated.  <br>
2) If you are unemployed, they continue to pay you until you find a job. They expect you to be looking for a job k, which is gauged by an <a href="http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/newstart\_activity\_test.htm" title="centrelink.gov.au" rel="nofollow">Activity Test</a> [centrelink.gov.au], and your payment can be stopped if you breach those conditions</p><p>Basically, the system supports those who need it until they get back on their feet, as long as they are doing the right thing. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I love the Australian system .
I have never had to use it yet , however , 1 ) If you are unemployed there are already rules in place to cover small income , via an Income test [ centrelink.gov.au ] , regardless of how the income was generated .
2 ) If you are unemployed , they continue to pay you until you find a job .
They expect you to be looking for a job k , which is gauged by an Activity Test [ centrelink.gov.au ] , and your payment can be stopped if you breach those conditionsBasically , the system supports those who need it until they get back on their feet , as long as they are doing the right thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I love the Australian system.
I have never had to use it yet, however, 
1) If you are unemployed there are already rules in place to cover small income, via an  Income test  [centrelink.gov.au], regardless of how the income was generated.
2) If you are unemployed, they continue to pay you until you find a job.
They expect you to be looking for a job k, which is gauged by an Activity Test [centrelink.gov.au], and your payment can be stopped if you breach those conditionsBasically, the system supports those who need it until they get back on their feet, as long as they are doing the right thing. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725723</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>clarkkent09</author>
	<datestamp>1255348500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>What is my best course of action if that is the case?</i> <br> <br>Get a job. I know people who are barely literate and still able to get jobs, even during economic crisis, so I'm sure you can too. The problem is usually not "I can't get a job" but "I can't get a job I want". There are plenty of places always hiring, fast foot restaurants, Wallmarts etc and the best course of action is to find one of those until something better comes along. If you think that's beneath you, then how is not beneath you to accept the benefits money paid by taxes of those people who do work in those jobs and worse?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is my best course of action if that is the case ?
Get a job .
I know people who are barely literate and still able to get jobs , even during economic crisis , so I 'm sure you can too .
The problem is usually not " I ca n't get a job " but " I ca n't get a job I want " .
There are plenty of places always hiring , fast foot restaurants , Wallmarts etc and the best course of action is to find one of those until something better comes along .
If you think that 's beneath you , then how is not beneath you to accept the benefits money paid by taxes of those people who do work in those jobs and worse ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is my best course of action if that is the case?
Get a job.
I know people who are barely literate and still able to get jobs, even during economic crisis, so I'm sure you can too.
The problem is usually not "I can't get a job" but "I can't get a job I want".
There are plenty of places always hiring, fast foot restaurants, Wallmarts etc and the best course of action is to find one of those until something better comes along.
If you think that's beneath you, then how is not beneath you to accept the benefits money paid by taxes of those people who do work in those jobs and worse?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29727597</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255360200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If they would encourage people to take part-time and temporary jobs, deducting what they make from their benefit check so they don't lose money working, but restoring their benefits if those jobs fall through, then more people would be out working.</p> </div><p>How does that encourage people to work? You end up working and make a net of $0 because every dollar you make comes out of your unemployment. What we really need is to just eliminate all of unemployment, social security, etc. and then make the lowest tax bracket negative: If you make $0/year, the gov't pays you $10,000/year. For every $3 you make over that, the government pays you $1 less, up to $30,000, so that by the time you make $30,000/year you aren't getting a government check but neither are you paying any taxes. You solve the problem you were trying to solve and you eliminate several huge entitlement bureaucracies in the process.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they would encourage people to take part-time and temporary jobs , deducting what they make from their benefit check so they do n't lose money working , but restoring their benefits if those jobs fall through , then more people would be out working .
How does that encourage people to work ?
You end up working and make a net of $ 0 because every dollar you make comes out of your unemployment .
What we really need is to just eliminate all of unemployment , social security , etc .
and then make the lowest tax bracket negative : If you make $ 0/year , the gov't pays you $ 10,000/year .
For every $ 3 you make over that , the government pays you $ 1 less , up to $ 30,000 , so that by the time you make $ 30,000/year you are n't getting a government check but neither are you paying any taxes .
You solve the problem you were trying to solve and you eliminate several huge entitlement bureaucracies in the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they would encourage people to take part-time and temporary jobs, deducting what they make from their benefit check so they don't lose money working, but restoring their benefits if those jobs fall through, then more people would be out working.
How does that encourage people to work?
You end up working and make a net of $0 because every dollar you make comes out of your unemployment.
What we really need is to just eliminate all of unemployment, social security, etc.
and then make the lowest tax bracket negative: If you make $0/year, the gov't pays you $10,000/year.
For every $3 you make over that, the government pays you $1 less, up to $30,000, so that by the time you make $30,000/year you aren't getting a government check but neither are you paying any taxes.
You solve the problem you were trying to solve and you eliminate several huge entitlement bureaucracies in the process.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723851</id>
	<title>Re:Big Government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255340040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem isn't that government run health care is inherently bad, the problem is that Republican and some Democrat senators are in the pockets of the heatlh care companies, so we'll never get a decent health care plan passed that has a public plan to keep the insurance companies honest.</p><p>We're the only first world country with third world health care.  Hell, I think some third world countries take better care of their people than we do.  Shameful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't that government run health care is inherently bad , the problem is that Republican and some Democrat senators are in the pockets of the heatlh care companies , so we 'll never get a decent health care plan passed that has a public plan to keep the insurance companies honest.We 're the only first world country with third world health care .
Hell , I think some third world countries take better care of their people than we do .
Shameful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isn't that government run health care is inherently bad, the problem is that Republican and some Democrat senators are in the pockets of the heatlh care companies, so we'll never get a decent health care plan passed that has a public plan to keep the insurance companies honest.We're the only first world country with third world health care.
Hell, I think some third world countries take better care of their people than we do.
Shameful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723373</id>
	<title>total earned over the life of the blog $238.75</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1255338300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$189.35 of which were sympathy clicks by her boyfriend</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ 189.35 of which were sympathy clicks by her boyfriend</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$189.35 of which were sympathy clicks by her boyfriend</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29729521</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>kramerd</author>
	<datestamp>1255426380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It constitutes a loss.</p><p>COGS would be higher than revenue.</p><p>The question is whether it constitutes a business. At best, you are running a not-for-profit organization where you subsidize the cost of video games for the general public, albeit on an extremely small scale. For practical purposes, you are not a sole proprietor, because it would be illegal for you to sell merchandise below cost. Since all you do is sell things, and arent involved in the manufacturing, RD, distribution, etc., this would make you a retailer. The biggest issue, is of course, that a business cannot exist for the purpose of lowering personal expenses. After all, if your business gets sued, your personal assets aren't at stake (with the exception of a sole proprietorship).</p><p>When you aren't using inventory for personal use, then you might want to declare your business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It constitutes a loss.COGS would be higher than revenue.The question is whether it constitutes a business .
At best , you are running a not-for-profit organization where you subsidize the cost of video games for the general public , albeit on an extremely small scale .
For practical purposes , you are not a sole proprietor , because it would be illegal for you to sell merchandise below cost .
Since all you do is sell things , and arent involved in the manufacturing , RD , distribution , etc. , this would make you a retailer .
The biggest issue , is of course , that a business can not exist for the purpose of lowering personal expenses .
After all , if your business gets sued , your personal assets are n't at stake ( with the exception of a sole proprietorship ) .When you are n't using inventory for personal use , then you might want to declare your business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It constitutes a loss.COGS would be higher than revenue.The question is whether it constitutes a business.
At best, you are running a not-for-profit organization where you subsidize the cost of video games for the general public, albeit on an extremely small scale.
For practical purposes, you are not a sole proprietor, because it would be illegal for you to sell merchandise below cost.
Since all you do is sell things, and arent involved in the manufacturing, RD, distribution, etc., this would make you a retailer.
The biggest issue, is of course, that a business cannot exist for the purpose of lowering personal expenses.
After all, if your business gets sued, your personal assets aren't at stake (with the exception of a sole proprietorship).When you aren't using inventory for personal use, then you might want to declare your business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29726985</id>
	<title>Re:Horay government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255355520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose, with a certain generosity of sprit the US could be called civilised.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose , with a certain generosity of sprit the US could be called civilised .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose, with a certain generosity of sprit the US could be called civilised.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723713</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724241</id>
	<title>In my state extra income is great when unemployed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255341600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here, your benefits run out in six months, unless you have contract or side work (anything less than full time).  In that case, your unemployment check is reduced by your earnings, to zero if you exceed your benefit amount.</p><p>The system handles it automatically and it was fabulous when I transitioned from full time to part time work--I had benefits to fall back on (for a couple years, as I did rather well) and something to carry through the slow months (August and December in that field).</p><p>This method would be a real boon to anyone starting a business too.</p><p>Glad I didn't live in NY!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here , your benefits run out in six months , unless you have contract or side work ( anything less than full time ) .
In that case , your unemployment check is reduced by your earnings , to zero if you exceed your benefit amount.The system handles it automatically and it was fabulous when I transitioned from full time to part time work--I had benefits to fall back on ( for a couple years , as I did rather well ) and something to carry through the slow months ( August and December in that field ) .This method would be a real boon to anyone starting a business too.Glad I did n't live in NY !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here, your benefits run out in six months, unless you have contract or side work (anything less than full time).
In that case, your unemployment check is reduced by your earnings, to zero if you exceed your benefit amount.The system handles it automatically and it was fabulous when I transitioned from full time to part time work--I had benefits to fall back on (for a couple years, as I did rather well) and something to carry through the slow months (August and December in that field).This method would be a real boon to anyone starting a business too.Glad I didn't live in NY!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724101</id>
	<title>Re:Is it really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255340940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't quite grasp how the most expensive government in the history can be called "underfunded" with a straight face.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't quite grasp how the most expensive government in the history can be called " underfunded " with a straight face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't quite grasp how the most expensive government in the history can be called "underfunded" with a straight face.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29727539</id>
	<title>Shows the need for a "basic income"</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1255359900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Louis Kelso's idea of a basic income removes the need for many job protections. A basic income almost passed under Richard Nixon, promoted by Daniel Patrick Moynihan.<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic\_income" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic\_income</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://www.usbig.net/whatisbig.html" title="usbig.net">http://www.usbig.net/whatisbig.html</a> [usbig.net]<br><a href="http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html" title="basicincome.org">http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html</a> [basicincome.org]<br><a href="http://www.basicincome.com/" title="basicincome.com">http://www.basicincome.com/</a> [basicincome.com]<br><a href="http://www.michaeljournal.org/lesson1.htm" title="michaeljournal.org">http://www.michaeljournal.org/lesson1.htm</a> [michaeljournal.org]<br><a href="http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm" title="marshallbrain.com">http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm</a> [marshallbrain.com]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis\_O.\_Kelso" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis\_O.\_Kelso</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel\_Patrick\_Moynihan" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel\_Patrick\_Moynihan</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>One is being put in place in Brazil:<br><a href="http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=974" title="accuracy.org">http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=974</a> [accuracy.org]<br>"""<br>A senator from Brazil, Suplicy was the sponsor of the "Citizen's Basic Income" legislation that was signed into law last year. The law is grounded in the concept that an unconditional and guaranteed minimum income is the simplest and most effective step toward the eradication of poverty. It will be implemented gradually in Brazil beginning this year."<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; He said today: "All people -- regardless of their ethnicity, gender, whatever -- should be able to share in the wealth of the nation. This should be done in a way that is just and provides for dignity and real freedom. Ensuring a guaranteed unconditional income does several things: It ends bureaucracy of reporting and checking on people. It eliminates the stigma attached to getting resources from the government. It does not penalize someone for earning money from a job. And it removes uncertainty."<br>"""</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Louis Kelso 's idea of a basic income removes the need for many job protections .
A basic income almost passed under Richard Nixon , promoted by Daniel Patrick Moynihan.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic \ _income [ wikipedia.org ] http : //www.usbig.net/whatisbig.html [ usbig.net ] http : //www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html [ basicincome.org ] http : //www.basicincome.com/ [ basicincome.com ] http : //www.michaeljournal.org/lesson1.htm [ michaeljournal.org ] http : //www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm [ marshallbrain.com ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis \ _O. \ _Kelso [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel \ _Patrick \ _Moynihan [ wikipedia.org ] One is being put in place in Brazil : http : //www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php ? articleId = 974 [ accuracy.org ] " " " A senator from Brazil , Suplicy was the sponsor of the " Citizen 's Basic Income " legislation that was signed into law last year .
The law is grounded in the concept that an unconditional and guaranteed minimum income is the simplest and most effective step toward the eradication of poverty .
It will be implemented gradually in Brazil beginning this year .
"     He said today : " All people -- regardless of their ethnicity , gender , whatever -- should be able to share in the wealth of the nation .
This should be done in a way that is just and provides for dignity and real freedom .
Ensuring a guaranteed unconditional income does several things : It ends bureaucracy of reporting and checking on people .
It eliminates the stigma attached to getting resources from the government .
It does not penalize someone for earning money from a job .
And it removes uncertainty .
" " " "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Louis Kelso's idea of a basic income removes the need for many job protections.
A basic income almost passed under Richard Nixon, promoted by Daniel Patrick Moynihan.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic\_income [wikipedia.org]http://www.usbig.net/whatisbig.html [usbig.net]http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html [basicincome.org]http://www.basicincome.com/ [basicincome.com]http://www.michaeljournal.org/lesson1.htm [michaeljournal.org]http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm [marshallbrain.com]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis\_O.\_Kelso [wikipedia.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel\_Patrick\_Moynihan [wikipedia.org]One is being put in place in Brazil:http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=974 [accuracy.org]"""A senator from Brazil, Suplicy was the sponsor of the "Citizen's Basic Income" legislation that was signed into law last year.
The law is grounded in the concept that an unconditional and guaranteed minimum income is the simplest and most effective step toward the eradication of poverty.
It will be implemented gradually in Brazil beginning this year.
"
    He said today: "All people -- regardless of their ethnicity, gender, whatever -- should be able to share in the wealth of the nation.
This should be done in a way that is just and provides for dignity and real freedom.
Ensuring a guaranteed unconditional income does several things: It ends bureaucracy of reporting and checking on people.
It eliminates the stigma attached to getting resources from the government.
It does not penalize someone for earning money from a job.
And it removes uncertainty.
""""</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723805</id>
	<title>Re:Is it really?</title>
	<author>log1385</author>
	<datestamp>1255339920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&lt;quote&gt;Hmmm let's see, underfunded government entities are unable to keep up with new technology trends.  I would not call that revelation, "Stunning."&lt;/quote&gt;<br><br>The problem is not that the government is underfunded. No matter how much money it has, the government will never be able to keep up with technology. Microsoft has been throwing money at security improvement for years, and still MS apps and OS's are susceptible to the latest attacks. Money is not the problem or the solution. The problem is that the government acts as if people are robots and will only behave in certain ways.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm let 's see , underfunded government entities are unable to keep up with new technology trends .
I would not call that revelation , " Stunning .
" The problem is not that the government is underfunded .
No matter how much money it has , the government will never be able to keep up with technology .
Microsoft has been throwing money at security improvement for years , and still MS apps and OS 's are susceptible to the latest attacks .
Money is not the problem or the solution .
The problem is that the government acts as if people are robots and will only behave in certain ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm let's see, underfunded government entities are unable to keep up with new technology trends.
I would not call that revelation, "Stunning.
"The problem is not that the government is underfunded.
No matter how much money it has, the government will never be able to keep up with technology.
Microsoft has been throwing money at security improvement for years, and still MS apps and OS's are susceptible to the latest attacks.
Money is not the problem or the solution.
The problem is that the government acts as if people are robots and will only behave in certain ways.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724265</id>
	<title>wouldn't a negative income tax solve this problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255341660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i mean, it looks like it work,</p><p>you get a base salary no matter what, which is pegged to the poverty line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i mean , it looks like it work,you get a base salary no matter what , which is pegged to the poverty line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i mean, it looks like it work,you get a base salary no matter what, which is pegged to the poverty line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723475</id>
	<title>ABP FTW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255338840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>She should have gotten the unemployment office to use Ad Block Plus. That way they wouldn't have seen her ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She should have gotten the unemployment office to use Ad Block Plus .
That way they would n't have seen her ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She should have gotten the unemployment office to use Ad Block Plus.
That way they wouldn't have seen her ads.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725847</id>
	<title>Re:State beauracrats are usually idiots..</title>
	<author>lgw</author>
	<datestamp>1255349100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you pay the government you need to get a government form as a receipt.  A cancelled check means nothing to a government - only a government form has meaning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you pay the government you need to get a government form as a receipt .
A cancelled check means nothing to a government - only a government form has meaning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you pay the government you need to get a government form as a receipt.
A cancelled check means nothing to a government - only a government form has meaning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723713</id>
	<title>Re:Horay government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255339620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They already run it via regulation. Now, they just need to start paying for it like every other civilized nation in the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They already run it via regulation .
Now , they just need to start paying for it like every other civilized nation in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They already run it via regulation.
Now, they just need to start paying for it like every other civilized nation in the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723669</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>Lord\_Dweomer</author>
	<datestamp>1255339500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that a state by state thing?  This issue has me seriously scared.  The revenue (not much, a couple hundred a month) from one of my sites goes into a business checking account that is basically setup as a sole proprietorship (in IL).  If I've been collecting unemployment because I don't have an actual job, while earning revenue from that site, am I fucked?  What is my best course of action if that is the case?  I don't even know what sort of lawyer would deal with this kind of law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that a state by state thing ?
This issue has me seriously scared .
The revenue ( not much , a couple hundred a month ) from one of my sites goes into a business checking account that is basically setup as a sole proprietorship ( in IL ) .
If I 've been collecting unemployment because I do n't have an actual job , while earning revenue from that site , am I fucked ?
What is my best course of action if that is the case ?
I do n't even know what sort of lawyer would deal with this kind of law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that a state by state thing?
This issue has me seriously scared.
The revenue (not much, a couple hundred a month) from one of my sites goes into a business checking account that is basically setup as a sole proprietorship (in IL).
If I've been collecting unemployment because I don't have an actual job, while earning revenue from that site, am I fucked?
What is my best course of action if that is the case?
I don't even know what sort of lawyer would deal with this kind of law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724365</id>
	<title>Don't worry, they'll get health care right...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255342140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723507</id>
	<title>Looks like she should have kept adsense up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255338960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>now that her story is getting some wide coverage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>now that her story is getting some wide coverage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>now that her story is getting some wide coverage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29732451</id>
	<title>Re:Well, all are illegal...</title>
	<author>TRRosen</author>
	<datestamp>1255451400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>absolutely not....You can be employed(read underemployed) and collect unemployment your benefits are just reduced. If she was getting the income from a traditional job she would have had no problem. But if someone gives you $20 a week to Walk there dog your screwed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>absolutely not....You can be employed ( read underemployed ) and collect unemployment your benefits are just reduced .
If she was getting the income from a traditional job she would have had no problem .
But if someone gives you $ 20 a week to Walk there dog your screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>absolutely not....You can be employed(read underemployed) and collect unemployment your benefits are just reduced.
If she was getting the income from a traditional job she would have had no problem.
But if someone gives you $20 a week to Walk there dog your screwed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29749707</id>
	<title>Re:Horay government</title>
	<author>toadlife</author>
	<datestamp>1255513500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your simplistic view of how societies operate is quaint, and your 1:1 ratio of straw mans to sentences is impressive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your simplistic view of how societies operate is quaint , and your 1 : 1 ratio of straw mans to sentences is impressive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your simplistic view of how societies operate is quaint, and your 1:1 ratio of straw mans to sentences is impressive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29730345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723401</id>
	<title>Gezz, why the heck did she tell them?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255338480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean seriously?  Is she THAT green from college?  I did the same thing with a temp job for ONE DAY for just under $50 bucks and the state pulled my benifits and "held them" for a few months.  All because my grandpa didn't get their mail:P  Luckly I got another job in a week after but still.<br> <br>
To be frank, you don't tell the government ANYTHING unless you can fill out all those bubbles on a form.  Unless the guys your working for has you fill a W-2, just "forget" about it.  I mean, sure she is trying to pass the bar and dosn't want to put any tanit on her record.  If that was the case, she shouldn't of signed up for addsence during her unemployment:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean seriously ?
Is she THAT green from college ?
I did the same thing with a temp job for ONE DAY for just under $ 50 bucks and the state pulled my benifits and " held them " for a few months .
All because my grandpa did n't get their mail : P Luckly I got another job in a week after but still .
To be frank , you do n't tell the government ANYTHING unless you can fill out all those bubbles on a form .
Unless the guys your working for has you fill a W-2 , just " forget " about it .
I mean , sure she is trying to pass the bar and dos n't want to put any tanit on her record .
If that was the case , she should n't of signed up for addsence during her unemployment : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean seriously?
Is she THAT green from college?
I did the same thing with a temp job for ONE DAY for just under $50 bucks and the state pulled my benifits and "held them" for a few months.
All because my grandpa didn't get their mail:P  Luckly I got another job in a week after but still.
To be frank, you don't tell the government ANYTHING unless you can fill out all those bubbles on a form.
Unless the guys your working for has you fill a W-2, just "forget" about it.
I mean, sure she is trying to pass the bar and dosn't want to put any tanit on her record.
If that was the case, she shouldn't of signed up for addsence during her unemployment:P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723675</id>
	<title>Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps....</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1255339500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>...too incredulous to believe. Especially in New York.</i>
<br>
<br>
Are you kidding??  I'm a lawyer in NY, and the job market here is bad to the point of ridiculousness.  Any open position will have hundreds of applicants, and the worst thing is it's probably never going to recover.  Too many law schools, too many ignorant law school applicants, and too many law school administrators who are the only ones who benefit from the lawyer explosion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...too incredulous to believe .
Especially in New York .
Are you kidding ? ?
I 'm a lawyer in NY , and the job market here is bad to the point of ridiculousness .
Any open position will have hundreds of applicants , and the worst thing is it 's probably never going to recover .
Too many law schools , too many ignorant law school applicants , and too many law school administrators who are the only ones who benefit from the lawyer explosion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...too incredulous to believe.
Especially in New York.
Are you kidding??
I'm a lawyer in NY, and the job market here is bad to the point of ridiculousness.
Any open position will have hundreds of applicants, and the worst thing is it's probably never going to recover.
Too many law schools, too many ignorant law school applicants, and too many law school administrators who are the only ones who benefit from the lawyer explosion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724009</id>
	<title>Re:She reported it</title>
	<author>SirWhoopass</author>
	<datestamp>1255340580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If she hit $600 by the end of the year (not likely, but who knows?) then Google would have issued a 1099, a copy of which is available to the state. It's not unreasonable to believe that the state has an automated system to match that against unemployment records. And then she gets hit with fraud.</p><p>The real problem is the state's rules that cause $1 to trigger a 25\% reduction. A more reasonable regulation might be no reduction for income under $25 and then a dollar-for-dollar reduction up to $405 (the point at which NY cuts benefits entirely).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If she hit $ 600 by the end of the year ( not likely , but who knows ?
) then Google would have issued a 1099 , a copy of which is available to the state .
It 's not unreasonable to believe that the state has an automated system to match that against unemployment records .
And then she gets hit with fraud.The real problem is the state 's rules that cause $ 1 to trigger a 25 \ % reduction .
A more reasonable regulation might be no reduction for income under $ 25 and then a dollar-for-dollar reduction up to $ 405 ( the point at which NY cuts benefits entirely ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If she hit $600 by the end of the year (not likely, but who knows?
) then Google would have issued a 1099, a copy of which is available to the state.
It's not unreasonable to believe that the state has an automated system to match that against unemployment records.
And then she gets hit with fraud.The real problem is the state's rules that cause $1 to trigger a 25\% reduction.
A more reasonable regulation might be no reduction for income under $25 and then a dollar-for-dollar reduction up to $405 (the point at which NY cuts benefits entirely).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724305</id>
	<title>Re:Horay government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255341840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can't wait until they run Healthcare can you?</p></div><p>No, actually, I can't.</p><p>I got stuck with about $1,000 in travel expenses when I was in college because I had to go to another state for an operation.  There were perfectly good doctors here in NY.  No reason I couldn't have the operation here.  But the insurance was through my parents, in MN, so the operation had to be done in MN.  And the insurance refused to pay for the travel to/from MN.  They initially didn't want to pay for my hospitalization here in NY in the first place...  That would have been another $3,000 or so...  But after a year or so of arguing we convinced them otherwise.</p><p>My wife requires a good amount of medication to stay alive.  She can't work.  She's disabled, according to the government, so they cover her medical expenses.  This is great, because there's no way in hell I could afford to pay for all her medication and doctors and whatnot.  The problem is that I can't get a raise, or she's off disability, and we have to pay for it <b>all</b>.  I can't add her to my insurance, because they won't cover her pre-existing condition.  And my income would have to more than <b>double</b> in order to pay all her bills.  So I've had to turn down several raises now, just to keep my wife insured by the state, so we can afford to keep her alive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't wait until they run Healthcare can you ? No , actually , I ca n't.I got stuck with about $ 1,000 in travel expenses when I was in college because I had to go to another state for an operation .
There were perfectly good doctors here in NY .
No reason I could n't have the operation here .
But the insurance was through my parents , in MN , so the operation had to be done in MN .
And the insurance refused to pay for the travel to/from MN .
They initially did n't want to pay for my hospitalization here in NY in the first place... That would have been another $ 3,000 or so... But after a year or so of arguing we convinced them otherwise.My wife requires a good amount of medication to stay alive .
She ca n't work .
She 's disabled , according to the government , so they cover her medical expenses .
This is great , because there 's no way in hell I could afford to pay for all her medication and doctors and whatnot .
The problem is that I ca n't get a raise , or she 's off disability , and we have to pay for it all .
I ca n't add her to my insurance , because they wo n't cover her pre-existing condition .
And my income would have to more than double in order to pay all her bills .
So I 've had to turn down several raises now , just to keep my wife insured by the state , so we can afford to keep her alive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't wait until they run Healthcare can you?No, actually, I can't.I got stuck with about $1,000 in travel expenses when I was in college because I had to go to another state for an operation.
There were perfectly good doctors here in NY.
No reason I couldn't have the operation here.
But the insurance was through my parents, in MN, so the operation had to be done in MN.
And the insurance refused to pay for the travel to/from MN.
They initially didn't want to pay for my hospitalization here in NY in the first place...  That would have been another $3,000 or so...  But after a year or so of arguing we convinced them otherwise.My wife requires a good amount of medication to stay alive.
She can't work.
She's disabled, according to the government, so they cover her medical expenses.
This is great, because there's no way in hell I could afford to pay for all her medication and doctors and whatnot.
The problem is that I can't get a raise, or she's off disability, and we have to pay for it all.
I can't add her to my insurance, because they won't cover her pre-existing condition.
And my income would have to more than double in order to pay all her bills.
So I've had to turn down several raises now, just to keep my wife insured by the state, so we can afford to keep her alive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29734923</id>
	<title>Re:Nevada is suing me for back unemployment</title>
	<author>phlinn</author>
	<datestamp>1255462380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So how exactly do you blame Libertarians for anything you complained about in your post?  I'm not even going to touch the assumptions that go into your spin in your first paragraph, but even accepting them at face value there is nothing there that can be linked to libertarians.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So how exactly do you blame Libertarians for anything you complained about in your post ?
I 'm not even going to touch the assumptions that go into your spin in your first paragraph , but even accepting them at face value there is nothing there that can be linked to libertarians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how exactly do you blame Libertarians for anything you complained about in your post?
I'm not even going to touch the assumptions that go into your spin in your first paragraph, but even accepting them at face value there is nothing there that can be linked to libertarians.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724621</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1255343160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can save money no matter how much you make.  Saying "I don't make enough to save" is bullshit.  People who make under 20k per year.  In most areas you can rent for around $500 per month - it may be a shithole but it's a place to live (in some areas $500 gets you a damn fine apartment).  That's about $6k per year.  You can eat well for about $20-25 per week if you buy the right foods, which ads up to around $1000 per year for food.  If you wanted to live on ramen you could cut that down to under $250 per year, but I don't advise it, you'll be malnourished in short order.  Give another $3000 per year for things like laundry, clothes (you ARE buying cheap walmart clothes instead of those designer jeans, right?) and other miscelaneous expenses, and you've got $10,000 per year that a person making $20,000 per year can save.  Even with minimum wage you can still save $3k per year.  Anybody can get a minimum wage job, even in this economy.  Most anybody can manage a second, part time job as well.</p><p>The problem people have is they think "extras" are necessities.  Cell phone? Luxury item.  Car? Yeah, it's a luxury too.  TV? Cable? Internet? All luxuries.  Making more money only makes this problem worse, as people tend to buy more and more luxuries instead of saving the extra, like they should.</p><p>Back to the unemployment issue, what is really disturbing, is that the unemployment benefits are all or nothing.  The fact that they don't care if your supplimental income doesn't come close to what even unemployment benifits provide is stupid, and isn't exactly a good way of encouraging someone to find a new job.  This all or nothing nonsense needs to go.  Just adjust the unemployment to take into account the supplimental income - adjusting it up until the supplimental income is greater than the unemployment benefit, at which point the benifit goes away entirely.</p><p>The fact is, if she was a high-paid lawyer before she lost her job, chances are she paid more in unemployment insurance while she was working than people making under $20k even made, and she deserves some of that back when she falls on hard times.  Cutting her out for $1 per day is utter bullshit and you know it.</p><p>This attitude of "You're rich, you should support me" is exactly the attitude that keeps poor people poor (and getting poorer) and rich people rich (and getting richer).  How about we take a little responsibility for ourselves, and do away with unemployment insurance altogether, huh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can save money no matter how much you make .
Saying " I do n't make enough to save " is bullshit .
People who make under 20k per year .
In most areas you can rent for around $ 500 per month - it may be a shithole but it 's a place to live ( in some areas $ 500 gets you a damn fine apartment ) .
That 's about $ 6k per year .
You can eat well for about $ 20-25 per week if you buy the right foods , which ads up to around $ 1000 per year for food .
If you wanted to live on ramen you could cut that down to under $ 250 per year , but I do n't advise it , you 'll be malnourished in short order .
Give another $ 3000 per year for things like laundry , clothes ( you ARE buying cheap walmart clothes instead of those designer jeans , right ?
) and other miscelaneous expenses , and you 've got $ 10,000 per year that a person making $ 20,000 per year can save .
Even with minimum wage you can still save $ 3k per year .
Anybody can get a minimum wage job , even in this economy .
Most anybody can manage a second , part time job as well.The problem people have is they think " extras " are necessities .
Cell phone ?
Luxury item .
Car ? Yeah , it 's a luxury too .
TV ? Cable ?
Internet ? All luxuries .
Making more money only makes this problem worse , as people tend to buy more and more luxuries instead of saving the extra , like they should.Back to the unemployment issue , what is really disturbing , is that the unemployment benefits are all or nothing .
The fact that they do n't care if your supplimental income does n't come close to what even unemployment benifits provide is stupid , and is n't exactly a good way of encouraging someone to find a new job .
This all or nothing nonsense needs to go .
Just adjust the unemployment to take into account the supplimental income - adjusting it up until the supplimental income is greater than the unemployment benefit , at which point the benifit goes away entirely.The fact is , if she was a high-paid lawyer before she lost her job , chances are she paid more in unemployment insurance while she was working than people making under $ 20k even made , and she deserves some of that back when she falls on hard times .
Cutting her out for $ 1 per day is utter bullshit and you know it.This attitude of " You 're rich , you should support me " is exactly the attitude that keeps poor people poor ( and getting poorer ) and rich people rich ( and getting richer ) .
How about we take a little responsibility for ourselves , and do away with unemployment insurance altogether , huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can save money no matter how much you make.
Saying "I don't make enough to save" is bullshit.
People who make under 20k per year.
In most areas you can rent for around $500 per month - it may be a shithole but it's a place to live (in some areas $500 gets you a damn fine apartment).
That's about $6k per year.
You can eat well for about $20-25 per week if you buy the right foods, which ads up to around $1000 per year for food.
If you wanted to live on ramen you could cut that down to under $250 per year, but I don't advise it, you'll be malnourished in short order.
Give another $3000 per year for things like laundry, clothes (you ARE buying cheap walmart clothes instead of those designer jeans, right?
) and other miscelaneous expenses, and you've got $10,000 per year that a person making $20,000 per year can save.
Even with minimum wage you can still save $3k per year.
Anybody can get a minimum wage job, even in this economy.
Most anybody can manage a second, part time job as well.The problem people have is they think "extras" are necessities.
Cell phone?
Luxury item.
Car? Yeah, it's a luxury too.
TV? Cable?
Internet? All luxuries.
Making more money only makes this problem worse, as people tend to buy more and more luxuries instead of saving the extra, like they should.Back to the unemployment issue, what is really disturbing, is that the unemployment benefits are all or nothing.
The fact that they don't care if your supplimental income doesn't come close to what even unemployment benifits provide is stupid, and isn't exactly a good way of encouraging someone to find a new job.
This all or nothing nonsense needs to go.
Just adjust the unemployment to take into account the supplimental income - adjusting it up until the supplimental income is greater than the unemployment benefit, at which point the benifit goes away entirely.The fact is, if she was a high-paid lawyer before she lost her job, chances are she paid more in unemployment insurance while she was working than people making under $20k even made, and she deserves some of that back when she falls on hard times.
Cutting her out for $1 per day is utter bullshit and you know it.This attitude of "You're rich, you should support me" is exactly the attitude that keeps poor people poor (and getting poorer) and rich people rich (and getting richer).
How about we take a little responsibility for ourselves, and do away with unemployment insurance altogether, huh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29727329</id>
	<title>Re:Nevada is suing me for back unemployment</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1255358220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By forming an LLC you did own and operate a company, it's the very definition of it.</p><p>Yes the rules are stupid but those are the rules and they're not exactly hidden. Starting a company or accepting contract work nullifies your unemployment in lots of places.</p><p>The government providing incentives to stay on their teat and not provide for yourself as much as possible is par for the course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By forming an LLC you did own and operate a company , it 's the very definition of it.Yes the rules are stupid but those are the rules and they 're not exactly hidden .
Starting a company or accepting contract work nullifies your unemployment in lots of places.The government providing incentives to stay on their teat and not provide for yourself as much as possible is par for the course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By forming an LLC you did own and operate a company, it's the very definition of it.Yes the rules are stupid but those are the rules and they're not exactly hidden.
Starting a company or accepting contract work nullifies your unemployment in lots of places.The government providing incentives to stay on their teat and not provide for yourself as much as possible is par for the course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723449</id>
	<title>Well, all are illegal...</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1255338660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bottom line is, unemployment is to fill in while you don't have a job.  If you get money selling Avon, the farmer's market, or work as a musician, then you sorta have a job, don't you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bottom line is , unemployment is to fill in while you do n't have a job .
If you get money selling Avon , the farmer 's market , or work as a musician , then you sorta have a job , do n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bottom line is, unemployment is to fill in while you don't have a job.
If you get money selling Avon, the farmer's market, or work as a musician, then you sorta have a job, don't you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723995</id>
	<title>The clash always said it best</title>
	<author>MerlynEmrys67</author>
	<datestamp>1255340520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And number 2<br>
You have the right to food money<br>
Providing of course you<br>
Dont mind a little<br>
Investigation, humiliation<br>
And if you cross your fingers<br>
Rehabilitation</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
-- Know your Rights<br>
Don't forget to check out numbers 1 &amp; 3</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And number 2 You have the right to food money Providing of course you Dont mind a little Investigation , humiliation And if you cross your fingers Rehabilitation -- Know your Rights Do n't forget to check out numbers 1 &amp; 3</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And number 2
You have the right to food money
Providing of course you
Dont mind a little
Investigation, humiliation
And if you cross your fingers
Rehabilitation

-- Know your Rights
Don't forget to check out numbers 1 &amp; 3
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724565</id>
	<title>Government bureaucrats are usually idiots..</title>
	<author>mi</author>
	<datestamp>1255342980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All government bureaucrats are usually idiots &mdash; what makes you think, Feds are any brighter?</p><blockquote><div><p>The whole thing sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare, with NY State asking her to get a form from her new 'employer' who didn't exist. Then NY Department of Labor started giving her all sorts of contradicting information, and eventually an 'investigation' into her 'business' -- during which time her unemployment benefits were stopped entirely.</p></div></blockquote><p>Hey, I have an idea! Let's turn health care over to these people &mdash; just to see, if they perform better this time, than they did with public schools and highways...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All government bureaucrats are usually idiots    what makes you think , Feds are any brighter ? The whole thing sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare , with NY State asking her to get a form from her new 'employer ' who did n't exist .
Then NY Department of Labor started giving her all sorts of contradicting information , and eventually an 'investigation ' into her 'business ' -- during which time her unemployment benefits were stopped entirely.Hey , I have an idea !
Let 's turn health care over to these people    just to see , if they perform better this time , than they did with public schools and highways.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All government bureaucrats are usually idiots — what makes you think, Feds are any brighter?The whole thing sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare, with NY State asking her to get a form from her new 'employer' who didn't exist.
Then NY Department of Labor started giving her all sorts of contradicting information, and eventually an 'investigation' into her 'business' -- during which time her unemployment benefits were stopped entirely.Hey, I have an idea!
Let's turn health care over to these people — just to see, if they perform better this time, than they did with public schools and highways...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723341</id>
	<title>Is it really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255338120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"It's really stunning how various labor departments are simply ill-equipped to handle a modern labor force."
<br>
<br>
Hmmm let's see, underfunded government entities are unable to keep up with new technology trends.  I would not call that revelation, "Stunning."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's really stunning how various labor departments are simply ill-equipped to handle a modern labor force .
" Hmmm let 's see , underfunded government entities are unable to keep up with new technology trends .
I would not call that revelation , " Stunning .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's really stunning how various labor departments are simply ill-equipped to handle a modern labor force.
"


Hmmm let's see, underfunded government entities are unable to keep up with new technology trends.
I would not call that revelation, "Stunning.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723911</id>
	<title>Re:Slow news day</title>
	<author>WankersRevenge</author>
	<datestamp>1255340280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Easy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... look at this job loss <a href="http://tipstrategies.com/archive/geography-of-jobs/" title="tipstrategies.com">infographic</a> [tipstrategies.com].  It is a painful reminder that we are, you know, in the middle of a recession.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy ... look at this job loss infographic [ tipstrategies.com ] .
It is a painful reminder that we are , you know , in the middle of a recession .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy ... look at this job loss infographic [tipstrategies.com].
It is a painful reminder that we are, you know, in the middle of a recession.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724293</id>
	<title>Can somebody make a living on adsense?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255341780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Somewhat tangential to the story, but how many people <i>do</i> make a living on checks from google adsense?  I've looked around and not been able to find any good info on whether it's worth trying to make a website to make some money off adsense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Somewhat tangential to the story , but how many people do make a living on checks from google adsense ?
I 've looked around and not been able to find any good info on whether it 's worth trying to make a website to make some money off adsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somewhat tangential to the story, but how many people do make a living on checks from google adsense?
I've looked around and not been able to find any good info on whether it's worth trying to make a website to make some money off adsense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29729187</id>
	<title>Re:Can somebody make a living on adsense?</title>
	<author>amorsen</author>
	<datestamp>1255464600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe the Adsense agreement prohibits sharing details about your adsense earnings, but hopefully it should be ok to say that <a href="http://www.generals.dk/" title="generals.dk">www.generals.dk</a> [generals.dk] with ~20000 unique visitors each month probably makes around the same amount of money as that blog.</p><p>If you optimized so you got ten times as much money per visitor, you'd likely still need ten times as many visitors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the Adsense agreement prohibits sharing details about your adsense earnings , but hopefully it should be ok to say that www.generals.dk [ generals.dk ] with ~ 20000 unique visitors each month probably makes around the same amount of money as that blog.If you optimized so you got ten times as much money per visitor , you 'd likely still need ten times as many visitors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the Adsense agreement prohibits sharing details about your adsense earnings, but hopefully it should be ok to say that www.generals.dk [generals.dk] with ~20000 unique visitors each month probably makes around the same amount of money as that blog.If you optimized so you got ten times as much money per visitor, you'd likely still need ten times as many visitors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723459</id>
	<title>"Bureaucratic Nightmare"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255338780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You think this was bad!?  Welcome to the future of your health care benefits if you hand it over to the government!<br> <br>

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'<br>
     - Ronald Reagan</htmltext>
<tokenext>You think this was bad ! ?
Welcome to the future of your health care benefits if you hand it over to the government !
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are , 'I 'm from the government and I 'm here to help .
' - Ronald Reagan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think this was bad!?
Welcome to the future of your health care benefits if you hand it over to the government!
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
'
     - Ronald Reagan</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725097</id>
	<title>Unemployment Check?</title>
	<author>Trogre</author>
	<datestamp>1255345380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What, she loses the ability to check her unemployment?</p><p>Oh, upon reading TFS I see they mean she lost her unemployment cheque.</p><p>Stupid cultures different from mine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What , she loses the ability to check her unemployment ? Oh , upon reading TFS I see they mean she lost her unemployment cheque.Stupid cultures different from mine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, she loses the ability to check her unemployment?Oh, upon reading TFS I see they mean she lost her unemployment cheque.Stupid cultures different from mine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724731</id>
	<title>Re:An Unemployed... Lawyer?</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1255343700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually yes lawyers can be unemployed. I worked as a programmer in a law firm, and a lawyer was hired as a programmer because he claimed he couldn't find work as a lawyer. I trained him on Visual BASIC, Crystal Reports, and ASP 2.0 VBScript programming. After six months working as a programmer, he claimed he couldn't handle it, and that the job was too stressful and he quit and got hired as a lawyer by a rival law firm. I don't know why a lawyer would want to work as a programmer without any programming experience, but as I taught/tutored him in programming he taught me a bit about lawyers and the law. Unless a lawyer is well known, or working for a major law firm, they can suffer from periods of unemployment. Since he got a job working as a programmer for the big law firm we both worked in, it helped a rival big law firm hire him on. He couldn't get a job at my employer as a lawyer so he applied for a programmer position, as he had entry level knowledge and I was always given the task to train new programmers to get them up to speed because I have a lot of experience and worked in a college computer lab training students and debugging programs, and other jobs where I trained programmers like when I was a federal contractor for the US Army before that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually yes lawyers can be unemployed .
I worked as a programmer in a law firm , and a lawyer was hired as a programmer because he claimed he could n't find work as a lawyer .
I trained him on Visual BASIC , Crystal Reports , and ASP 2.0 VBScript programming .
After six months working as a programmer , he claimed he could n't handle it , and that the job was too stressful and he quit and got hired as a lawyer by a rival law firm .
I do n't know why a lawyer would want to work as a programmer without any programming experience , but as I taught/tutored him in programming he taught me a bit about lawyers and the law .
Unless a lawyer is well known , or working for a major law firm , they can suffer from periods of unemployment .
Since he got a job working as a programmer for the big law firm we both worked in , it helped a rival big law firm hire him on .
He could n't get a job at my employer as a lawyer so he applied for a programmer position , as he had entry level knowledge and I was always given the task to train new programmers to get them up to speed because I have a lot of experience and worked in a college computer lab training students and debugging programs , and other jobs where I trained programmers like when I was a federal contractor for the US Army before that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually yes lawyers can be unemployed.
I worked as a programmer in a law firm, and a lawyer was hired as a programmer because he claimed he couldn't find work as a lawyer.
I trained him on Visual BASIC, Crystal Reports, and ASP 2.0 VBScript programming.
After six months working as a programmer, he claimed he couldn't handle it, and that the job was too stressful and he quit and got hired as a lawyer by a rival law firm.
I don't know why a lawyer would want to work as a programmer without any programming experience, but as I taught/tutored him in programming he taught me a bit about lawyers and the law.
Unless a lawyer is well known, or working for a major law firm, they can suffer from periods of unemployment.
Since he got a job working as a programmer for the big law firm we both worked in, it helped a rival big law firm hire him on.
He couldn't get a job at my employer as a lawyer so he applied for a programmer position, as he had entry level knowledge and I was always given the task to train new programmers to get them up to speed because I have a lot of experience and worked in a college computer lab training students and debugging programs, and other jobs where I trained programmers like when I was a federal contractor for the US Army before that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724665</id>
	<title>Re:Is it really?</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1255343340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also consider the possibility that this is an effect of austerity programs.  The department may be under a lot of pressure to cut expenditures.  A particular reason might be draconian federal audits.  I do not keep up on this sort of thing anymore, but I have heard stories that the federal auditors can be real ass-holes.  General government stupidity is always a good explanation, but during a Depression, austerity-driven stupidity is also pretty good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also consider the possibility that this is an effect of austerity programs .
The department may be under a lot of pressure to cut expenditures .
A particular reason might be draconian federal audits .
I do not keep up on this sort of thing anymore , but I have heard stories that the federal auditors can be real ass-holes .
General government stupidity is always a good explanation , but during a Depression , austerity-driven stupidity is also pretty good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also consider the possibility that this is an effect of austerity programs.
The department may be under a lot of pressure to cut expenditures.
A particular reason might be draconian federal audits.
I do not keep up on this sort of thing anymore, but I have heard stories that the federal auditors can be real ass-holes.
General government stupidity is always a good explanation, but during a Depression, austerity-driven stupidity is also pretty good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725679</id>
	<title>tough call?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255348140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On one hand, I want to say, "The State of NY are insensitive clods to let a few dollars' worth of ads be the justification for taking away her unemployment benefits."</p><p>But, on the other hand, maybe it shouldn't be the state's responsibility to subsidize those who can't make enough through their chosen occupation/hobby. I would totally quit my current job to sit around and post Slashdot comments all day whilst receiving a weekly $405 check from the state.</p><p>Also, I found this bit in TFA amusing:</p><blockquote><div><p>Earlier this year Karin--a 2008 graduate from the University of Virginia School of Law who asked that her last name not be published</p></div></blockquote><p>Oh really? I wonder how many Karin's graduated from the UoV law school in 2008 and now live in St. Louis? A quick Google search or two reveals that <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/karin-mcananey/b/a12/8a8" title="linkedin.com" rel="nofollow">this</a> [linkedin.com] is her Linked-In page. She uses her initials "KMCA" on the blog mentioned TFA (<a href="http://stlmealdeals.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">STL Meal Deals</a> [blogspot.com]) and her full name is Karin McAnaney.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On one hand , I want to say , " The State of NY are insensitive clods to let a few dollars ' worth of ads be the justification for taking away her unemployment benefits .
" But , on the other hand , maybe it should n't be the state 's responsibility to subsidize those who ca n't make enough through their chosen occupation/hobby .
I would totally quit my current job to sit around and post Slashdot comments all day whilst receiving a weekly $ 405 check from the state.Also , I found this bit in TFA amusing : Earlier this year Karin--a 2008 graduate from the University of Virginia School of Law who asked that her last name not be publishedOh really ?
I wonder how many Karin 's graduated from the UoV law school in 2008 and now live in St. Louis ? A quick Google search or two reveals that this [ linkedin.com ] is her Linked-In page .
She uses her initials " KMCA " on the blog mentioned TFA ( STL Meal Deals [ blogspot.com ] ) and her full name is Karin McAnaney .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On one hand, I want to say, "The State of NY are insensitive clods to let a few dollars' worth of ads be the justification for taking away her unemployment benefits.
"But, on the other hand, maybe it shouldn't be the state's responsibility to subsidize those who can't make enough through their chosen occupation/hobby.
I would totally quit my current job to sit around and post Slashdot comments all day whilst receiving a weekly $405 check from the state.Also, I found this bit in TFA amusing:Earlier this year Karin--a 2008 graduate from the University of Virginia School of Law who asked that her last name not be publishedOh really?
I wonder how many Karin's graduated from the UoV law school in 2008 and now live in St. Louis? A quick Google search or two reveals that this [linkedin.com] is her Linked-In page.
She uses her initials "KMCA" on the blog mentioned TFA (STL Meal Deals [blogspot.com]) and her full name is Karin McAnaney.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723443</id>
	<title>She reported it</title>
	<author>DogDude</author>
	<datestamp>1255338660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's her fault.  Anybody with the tiniest bit of common sense realizes that trying to explain something like this to an un-fireable government bureaucrat is a losing battle.  Why would she report the income?  That's really just a dumb move on her part.

That reminds me... my car inspection has expired.  Maybe I should call the DMV and tell them...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's her fault .
Anybody with the tiniest bit of common sense realizes that trying to explain something like this to an un-fireable government bureaucrat is a losing battle .
Why would she report the income ?
That 's really just a dumb move on her part .
That reminds me... my car inspection has expired .
Maybe I should call the DMV and tell them.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's her fault.
Anybody with the tiniest bit of common sense realizes that trying to explain something like this to an un-fireable government bureaucrat is a losing battle.
Why would she report the income?
That's really just a dumb move on her part.
That reminds me... my car inspection has expired.
Maybe I should call the DMV and tell them...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723453</id>
	<title>pity...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255338720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pity the blogger removed the advertising, I reckon traffic is about to skyrocket for a few days...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pity the blogger removed the advertising , I reckon traffic is about to skyrocket for a few days.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pity the blogger removed the advertising, I reckon traffic is about to skyrocket for a few days...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723773</id>
	<title>Re:An Unemployed... Lawyer?</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1255339860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hard for me to understand how a *lawyer* can be unemployed. Harder still for me to understand how an unemployed lawyer is unable to cut through the government red tape and related BS...  but then again, perhaps that's why she is currently unemployed.</p></div><p>Hey, that statement looks eminently libelous to me! Maybe more money will soon be headed her way!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hard for me to understand how a * lawyer * can be unemployed .
Harder still for me to understand how an unemployed lawyer is unable to cut through the government red tape and related BS... but then again , perhaps that 's why she is currently unemployed.Hey , that statement looks eminently libelous to me !
Maybe more money will soon be headed her way !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hard for me to understand how a *lawyer* can be unemployed.
Harder still for me to understand how an unemployed lawyer is unable to cut through the government red tape and related BS...  but then again, perhaps that's why she is currently unemployed.Hey, that statement looks eminently libelous to me!
Maybe more money will soon be headed her way!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723295</id>
	<title>An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255338060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...too incredulous to believe. Especially in New York.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...too incredulous to believe .
Especially in New York .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...too incredulous to believe.
Especially in New York.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724081</id>
	<title>Re:Well, all are illegal...</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1255340880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bottom line is, unemployment is to fill in while you don't have a job.  If you get money selling Avon, the farmer's market, or work as a musician, then you sorta have a job, don't you?</p></div><p>Maybe?</p><p>If I get fired from a minimum-wage 40 hour/week job, I'm out roughly $300/week.</p><p>If I can make $100/week selling Avon, or veggies at the farmer's market, or as a musician - I'm still not even making minimum wage.</p><p>I guess I'm not sure what the laws are regarding unemployment...  It is entirely possible that any income at all is considered employment...  But that hardly makes it <i>right</i> or <i>sensible</i>.</p><p>Seems to me that if the government considers roughly $300/week to be the <b>minimum</b> wage...  Then anything less than $300/week should be considered some kind of unemployment.  Or <b>under</b>employment, if you'd prefer.</p><p>Regardless, it isn't enough money to live off of.</p><p>If you want to cut off the unemployment check because they're technically employed, that's fine...  But if that crappy Avon income is all they've got, they're going to wind up on some other government benefit before too long - food stamps, or HUD, or something.  Because that's just not enough money to live off of.</p><p>Of course, if you're making $1,000/week from Avon then there's absolutely no reason you should be getting unemployment of any kind...  But that doesn't seem to be the case in this particular instance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bottom line is , unemployment is to fill in while you do n't have a job .
If you get money selling Avon , the farmer 's market , or work as a musician , then you sorta have a job , do n't you ? Maybe ? If I get fired from a minimum-wage 40 hour/week job , I 'm out roughly $ 300/week.If I can make $ 100/week selling Avon , or veggies at the farmer 's market , or as a musician - I 'm still not even making minimum wage.I guess I 'm not sure what the laws are regarding unemployment... It is entirely possible that any income at all is considered employment... But that hardly makes it right or sensible.Seems to me that if the government considers roughly $ 300/week to be the minimum wage... Then anything less than $ 300/week should be considered some kind of unemployment .
Or underemployment , if you 'd prefer.Regardless , it is n't enough money to live off of.If you want to cut off the unemployment check because they 're technically employed , that 's fine... But if that crappy Avon income is all they 've got , they 're going to wind up on some other government benefit before too long - food stamps , or HUD , or something .
Because that 's just not enough money to live off of.Of course , if you 're making $ 1,000/week from Avon then there 's absolutely no reason you should be getting unemployment of any kind... But that does n't seem to be the case in this particular instance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bottom line is, unemployment is to fill in while you don't have a job.
If you get money selling Avon, the farmer's market, or work as a musician, then you sorta have a job, don't you?Maybe?If I get fired from a minimum-wage 40 hour/week job, I'm out roughly $300/week.If I can make $100/week selling Avon, or veggies at the farmer's market, or as a musician - I'm still not even making minimum wage.I guess I'm not sure what the laws are regarding unemployment...  It is entirely possible that any income at all is considered employment...  But that hardly makes it right or sensible.Seems to me that if the government considers roughly $300/week to be the minimum wage...  Then anything less than $300/week should be considered some kind of unemployment.
Or underemployment, if you'd prefer.Regardless, it isn't enough money to live off of.If you want to cut off the unemployment check because they're technically employed, that's fine...  But if that crappy Avon income is all they've got, they're going to wind up on some other government benefit before too long - food stamps, or HUD, or something.
Because that's just not enough money to live off of.Of course, if you're making $1,000/week from Avon then there's absolutely no reason you should be getting unemployment of any kind...  But that doesn't seem to be the case in this particular instance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725121</id>
	<title>Re:State beauracrats are usually idiots..</title>
	<author>kz45</author>
	<datestamp>1255345500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Moral of the story? There isn't one. Moral issues have no relevance to people concerned with the functioning of the bureaucracies."</p><p>and people want their health care to be run like this..ha!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Moral of the story ?
There is n't one .
Moral issues have no relevance to people concerned with the functioning of the bureaucracies .
" and people want their health care to be run like this..ha !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Moral of the story?
There isn't one.
Moral issues have no relevance to people concerned with the functioning of the bureaucracies.
"and people want their health care to be run like this..ha!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29727355</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>Bender0x7D1</author>
	<datestamp>1255358460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>The Homeless man has no contract and no 1099 form, so he could earn a million dollars in cash and the government would not even know it, unless he reported it. But I doubt many homeless men earn more than $300 a <b>day</b>.</i> </p><p>Fixed that for you.</p><p>While solid data is hard to come by, it's estimated that $20-50 a day is average for panhandling, with some people making $300+ a day.  (One couple claimed $800 in a single day.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Homeless man has no contract and no 1099 form , so he could earn a million dollars in cash and the government would not even know it , unless he reported it .
But I doubt many homeless men earn more than $ 300 a day .
Fixed that for you.While solid data is hard to come by , it 's estimated that $ 20-50 a day is average for panhandling , with some people making $ 300 + a day .
( One couple claimed $ 800 in a single day .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The Homeless man has no contract and no 1099 form, so he could earn a million dollars in cash and the government would not even know it, unless he reported it.
But I doubt many homeless men earn more than $300 a day.
Fixed that for you.While solid data is hard to come by, it's estimated that $20-50 a day is average for panhandling, with some people making $300+ a day.
(One couple claimed $800 in a single day.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724463</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725191</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>gander666</author>
	<datestamp>1255345800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, not all lawyers work in firms that pay by the hour.  I know one lawyer, a public defender, doing it for the love of the work (because that is clearly not a path to mega-riches) who certainly makes less per hour than I do, and certainly would deserve unemployment if they were rif'd.<br> <br>Just because you know lawyers with huge hourly billable rates doesn't make them all like that.<br> <br>I like telling lawyer jokes as much as anyone, but some of them are not blood sucking leaches.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , not all lawyers work in firms that pay by the hour .
I know one lawyer , a public defender , doing it for the love of the work ( because that is clearly not a path to mega-riches ) who certainly makes less per hour than I do , and certainly would deserve unemployment if they were rif 'd .
Just because you know lawyers with huge hourly billable rates does n't make them all like that .
I like telling lawyer jokes as much as anyone , but some of them are not blood sucking leaches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, not all lawyers work in firms that pay by the hour.
I know one lawyer, a public defender, doing it for the love of the work (because that is clearly not a path to mega-riches) who certainly makes less per hour than I do, and certainly would deserve unemployment if they were rif'd.
Just because you know lawyers with huge hourly billable rates doesn't make them all like that.
I like telling lawyer jokes as much as anyone, but some of them are not blood sucking leaches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723777</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29727177</id>
	<title>California is keeping up...</title>
	<author>keith\_nt4</author>
	<datestamp>1255357080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a one day 1099 job coming up as well as some web sites I can make a little money on I'm trying to start on so I thought I would like this up for California.
<p>
Some how I found a site, not quite what I was looking for, that mentions <a href="http://www.edd.ca.gov/Payroll\_Taxes/Independent\_Contractor\_Reporting.htm" title="ca.gov" rel="nofollow">submitting filings on IBM 3480 or 3490 tape cartridge</a> [ca.gov]. Perfect!
</p><p>
I think I'd like to do this just to see the look on the face of the state employee that has to take such a cartridge...
</p><p>
Let it never be said California is some how behind the times technologically!
</p><p>
Ok Perhaps I'm missing something obvious...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a one day 1099 job coming up as well as some web sites I can make a little money on I 'm trying to start on so I thought I would like this up for California .
Some how I found a site , not quite what I was looking for , that mentions submitting filings on IBM 3480 or 3490 tape cartridge [ ca.gov ] .
Perfect ! I think I 'd like to do this just to see the look on the face of the state employee that has to take such a cartridge.. . Let it never be said California is some how behind the times technologically !
Ok Perhaps I 'm missing something obvious.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a one day 1099 job coming up as well as some web sites I can make a little money on I'm trying to start on so I thought I would like this up for California.
Some how I found a site, not quite what I was looking for, that mentions submitting filings on IBM 3480 or 3490 tape cartridge [ca.gov].
Perfect!

I think I'd like to do this just to see the look on the face of the state employee that has to take such a cartridge...

Let it never be said California is some how behind the times technologically!
Ok Perhaps I'm missing something obvious...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724379</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1255342200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Under UK tax law it would be exempt. It's not carrying on a trade, there's no intent to profit. Certain other things are specifically exempt even if you do make a 'profit' - like your primary residence. There can be grey areas like classic cars, some of which can be classified as an investment (and some do make good ones).</p><p>In the OP the income is typical of a trade. The lawyer could probably claim expenses sufficient to show a loss, but as it's effectively a self-employed trade (good or bad is not relevant) unemployment benefits go out the window. OK, here in the UK you can still claim but you need to prove the profit and it is deducted from the benefits, it's administered differently to normal benefits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Under UK tax law it would be exempt .
It 's not carrying on a trade , there 's no intent to profit .
Certain other things are specifically exempt even if you do make a 'profit ' - like your primary residence .
There can be grey areas like classic cars , some of which can be classified as an investment ( and some do make good ones ) .In the OP the income is typical of a trade .
The lawyer could probably claim expenses sufficient to show a loss , but as it 's effectively a self-employed trade ( good or bad is not relevant ) unemployment benefits go out the window .
OK , here in the UK you can still claim but you need to prove the profit and it is deducted from the benefits , it 's administered differently to normal benefits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Under UK tax law it would be exempt.
It's not carrying on a trade, there's no intent to profit.
Certain other things are specifically exempt even if you do make a 'profit' - like your primary residence.
There can be grey areas like classic cars, some of which can be classified as an investment (and some do make good ones).In the OP the income is typical of a trade.
The lawyer could probably claim expenses sufficient to show a loss, but as it's effectively a self-employed trade (good or bad is not relevant) unemployment benefits go out the window.
OK, here in the UK you can still claim but you need to prove the profit and it is deducted from the benefits, it's administered differently to normal benefits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29732361</id>
	<title>TFA Light on Details</title>
	<author>BradleyAndersen</author>
	<datestamp>1255450920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why are we all complaining? I did RTFA (shame on me!), and found absolutely zero evidence or sources to back up the author's claims.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are we all complaining ?
I did RTFA ( shame on me !
) , and found absolutely zero evidence or sources to back up the author 's claims .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are we all complaining?
I did RTFA (shame on me!
), and found absolutely zero evidence or sources to back up the author's claims.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29730899</id>
	<title>Re:Nevada is suing me for back unemployment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255443480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow - I'd always thought the Republican party was against handouts like unemployment - I'll have to re-read their platform</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow - I 'd always thought the Republican party was against handouts like unemployment - I 'll have to re-read their platform</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow - I'd always thought the Republican party was against handouts like unemployment - I'll have to re-read their platform</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723903</id>
	<title>Re:State beauracrats are usually idiots..</title>
	<author>Overzeetop</author>
	<datestamp>1255340220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's alright, in college I once got an "overpayment" refund from Virginia for $60 and change (on a $200-240 tax bill, as I remember). As a college student I foolishly cashed the check and spent the money. Four years later, I got a letter stating I underpaid my taxes by that $60, and I then owed them that money plus penalties and interest (close to $100). I didn't keep the letter or a copy of the check, so I was stuck paying.  I count it as a $40 life lesson in proper record keeping.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's alright , in college I once got an " overpayment " refund from Virginia for $ 60 and change ( on a $ 200-240 tax bill , as I remember ) .
As a college student I foolishly cashed the check and spent the money .
Four years later , I got a letter stating I underpaid my taxes by that $ 60 , and I then owed them that money plus penalties and interest ( close to $ 100 ) .
I did n't keep the letter or a copy of the check , so I was stuck paying .
I count it as a $ 40 life lesson in proper record keeping .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's alright, in college I once got an "overpayment" refund from Virginia for $60 and change (on a $200-240 tax bill, as I remember).
As a college student I foolishly cashed the check and spent the money.
Four years later, I got a letter stating I underpaid my taxes by that $60, and I then owed them that money plus penalties and interest (close to $100).
I didn't keep the letter or a copy of the check, so I was stuck paying.
I count it as a $40 life lesson in proper record keeping.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723599</id>
	<title>Big Government</title>
	<author>isa-kuruption</author>
	<datestamp>1255339260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is simply the result of big government in our lives.  It's the bureaucratic mess that occurs when government is given too much power over our lives; when we let them have that much power over our lives.  They decided, for her, that the money she was collecting was sufficient to live on... not that the decision made sense, it doesn't, but bureaucratic decisions tend not to make sense.</p><p>It will be worse when the government passes universal healthcare coverage.  Under the current proposals, they will tell you whether you're insurance is sufficient, and if not, will fine you for not having the proper coverage.  Eventually, as government continues it's reckless spending, more and more people will be told their coverage is insufficient as they try to cover the increasing debt.  Then, you will decide to get the best coverage available so you won't be fined, and that will result in being taxed for having a "luxury" plan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is simply the result of big government in our lives .
It 's the bureaucratic mess that occurs when government is given too much power over our lives ; when we let them have that much power over our lives .
They decided , for her , that the money she was collecting was sufficient to live on... not that the decision made sense , it does n't , but bureaucratic decisions tend not to make sense.It will be worse when the government passes universal healthcare coverage .
Under the current proposals , they will tell you whether you 're insurance is sufficient , and if not , will fine you for not having the proper coverage .
Eventually , as government continues it 's reckless spending , more and more people will be told their coverage is insufficient as they try to cover the increasing debt .
Then , you will decide to get the best coverage available so you wo n't be fined , and that will result in being taxed for having a " luxury " plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is simply the result of big government in our lives.
It's the bureaucratic mess that occurs when government is given too much power over our lives; when we let them have that much power over our lives.
They decided, for her, that the money she was collecting was sufficient to live on... not that the decision made sense, it doesn't, but bureaucratic decisions tend not to make sense.It will be worse when the government passes universal healthcare coverage.
Under the current proposals, they will tell you whether you're insurance is sufficient, and if not, will fine you for not having the proper coverage.
Eventually, as government continues it's reckless spending, more and more people will be told their coverage is insufficient as they try to cover the increasing debt.
Then, you will decide to get the best coverage available so you won't be fined, and that will result in being taxed for having a "luxury" plan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725877</id>
	<title>Re:Slow news day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255349280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the story isn't in this particular case, but in the general fact that if you make money, you can lose your entire unemployment check. The consequences of this go beyond rare individual injustices as mentioned in the article; it is a broad societal problem that a lot of people who could get a real job, even if only a few days a week, don't do so because of the associated risk. It's called the poverty fall/trap/etc. in the trade - the difference between benefits and (net) wages that sends you down into poverty the moment you start working. Not exactly news, but if it means persistent problems won't be forgotten simply because they're not news anymore, I don't mind an article like this every now and then. On slow news days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the story is n't in this particular case , but in the general fact that if you make money , you can lose your entire unemployment check .
The consequences of this go beyond rare individual injustices as mentioned in the article ; it is a broad societal problem that a lot of people who could get a real job , even if only a few days a week , do n't do so because of the associated risk .
It 's called the poverty fall/trap/etc .
in the trade - the difference between benefits and ( net ) wages that sends you down into poverty the moment you start working .
Not exactly news , but if it means persistent problems wo n't be forgotten simply because they 're not news anymore , I do n't mind an article like this every now and then .
On slow news days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the story isn't in this particular case, but in the general fact that if you make money, you can lose your entire unemployment check.
The consequences of this go beyond rare individual injustices as mentioned in the article; it is a broad societal problem that a lot of people who could get a real job, even if only a few days a week, don't do so because of the associated risk.
It's called the poverty fall/trap/etc.
in the trade - the difference between benefits and (net) wages that sends you down into poverty the moment you start working.
Not exactly news, but if it means persistent problems won't be forgotten simply because they're not news anymore, I don't mind an article like this every now and then.
On slow news days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724361</id>
	<title>Re:She reported it</title>
	<author>im\_thatoneguy</author>
	<datestamp>1255342140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfireable has nothing to do with it.  If Verizon or Walmart ran it, they would be just as useless.   It's not the unfireable part that's critical it's a case of a minimum wage worker not being given the power to legally give away hundreds of dollars.  And when you stop to think about it, do you really want a minimum wage worker to have that kind of power?  How much abuse and waste would there be if someone came in and wanted an exception and some burger flipper could just immediately make an exception?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfireable has nothing to do with it .
If Verizon or Walmart ran it , they would be just as useless .
It 's not the unfireable part that 's critical it 's a case of a minimum wage worker not being given the power to legally give away hundreds of dollars .
And when you stop to think about it , do you really want a minimum wage worker to have that kind of power ?
How much abuse and waste would there be if someone came in and wanted an exception and some burger flipper could just immediately make an exception ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfireable has nothing to do with it.
If Verizon or Walmart ran it, they would be just as useless.
It's not the unfireable part that's critical it's a case of a minimum wage worker not being given the power to legally give away hundreds of dollars.
And when you stop to think about it, do you really want a minimum wage worker to have that kind of power?
How much abuse and waste would there be if someone came in and wanted an exception and some burger flipper could just immediately make an exception?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29731609</id>
	<title>Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255447680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just made my day<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) Seriously - I haven't had a good belly-laugh like that in years.</p><p>Spontaneous laughter isn't unusual in my office, but my co-workers are getting a bit concerned by the stifled giggling and tears running down my face...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just made my day : ) Seriously - I have n't had a good belly-laugh like that in years.Spontaneous laughter is n't unusual in my office , but my co-workers are getting a bit concerned by the stifled giggling and tears running down my face.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just made my day :) Seriously - I haven't had a good belly-laugh like that in years.Spontaneous laughter isn't unusual in my office, but my co-workers are getting a bit concerned by the stifled giggling and tears running down my face...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29735559</id>
	<title>It's the government, why is anyone surprised?</title>
	<author>tinkerghost</author>
	<datestamp>1255465440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In MA, state income taxes must be filed with the Husbands SSN first on the taxes. My wife filed them once with her's first. Today, after 18 months and 3 corrective action forms, a dozen phone calls, 2 copies of my tax returns, 2 copies of the refund check they sent us, and a copy of the form they sent us to hit us for taxes on the refund - they sent me a letter saying that they will be happy to settle the unpaid back taxes for $1500.
</p><p>I used to live in NY. Their unemployment at the time was based on a requirement that you not work for 5 days of a 7 day week. If you worked 3 days, you were not eligible for unemployment. They didn't ask how much money did you make, just did you make any. So getting $20 for shoveling the neighbors driveway was a full days work as far as their system is concerned. So I can certainly see them closing down someone who was making as little as $1 a day.
</p><p>Fortunately, I now live &amp; work in MA. They don't care how much you work, just how much you got paid. That works well when you're doing day work cheaply, you get to make 1/3 of your unemployment check without loosing any from the check. After that it's 1:1 loss from the check.
</p><p>The bad part is that if your check goes to $0, they close your claim &amp; make you reopen it - which takes 10-14 days. That doesn't work well when you're temping &amp; working full time every 2-3 weeks. You spend 2-3 hours trying to reopen your claim each time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In MA , state income taxes must be filed with the Husbands SSN first on the taxes .
My wife filed them once with her 's first .
Today , after 18 months and 3 corrective action forms , a dozen phone calls , 2 copies of my tax returns , 2 copies of the refund check they sent us , and a copy of the form they sent us to hit us for taxes on the refund - they sent me a letter saying that they will be happy to settle the unpaid back taxes for $ 1500 .
I used to live in NY .
Their unemployment at the time was based on a requirement that you not work for 5 days of a 7 day week .
If you worked 3 days , you were not eligible for unemployment .
They did n't ask how much money did you make , just did you make any .
So getting $ 20 for shoveling the neighbors driveway was a full days work as far as their system is concerned .
So I can certainly see them closing down someone who was making as little as $ 1 a day .
Fortunately , I now live &amp; work in MA .
They do n't care how much you work , just how much you got paid .
That works well when you 're doing day work cheaply , you get to make 1/3 of your unemployment check without loosing any from the check .
After that it 's 1 : 1 loss from the check .
The bad part is that if your check goes to $ 0 , they close your claim &amp; make you reopen it - which takes 10-14 days .
That does n't work well when you 're temping &amp; working full time every 2-3 weeks .
You spend 2-3 hours trying to reopen your claim each time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In MA, state income taxes must be filed with the Husbands SSN first on the taxes.
My wife filed them once with her's first.
Today, after 18 months and 3 corrective action forms, a dozen phone calls, 2 copies of my tax returns, 2 copies of the refund check they sent us, and a copy of the form they sent us to hit us for taxes on the refund - they sent me a letter saying that they will be happy to settle the unpaid back taxes for $1500.
I used to live in NY.
Their unemployment at the time was based on a requirement that you not work for 5 days of a 7 day week.
If you worked 3 days, you were not eligible for unemployment.
They didn't ask how much money did you make, just did you make any.
So getting $20 for shoveling the neighbors driveway was a full days work as far as their system is concerned.
So I can certainly see them closing down someone who was making as little as $1 a day.
Fortunately, I now live &amp; work in MA.
They don't care how much you work, just how much you got paid.
That works well when you're doing day work cheaply, you get to make 1/3 of your unemployment check without loosing any from the check.
After that it's 1:1 loss from the check.
The bad part is that if your check goes to $0, they close your claim &amp; make you reopen it - which takes 10-14 days.
That doesn't work well when you're temping &amp; working full time every 2-3 weeks.
You spend 2-3 hours trying to reopen your claim each time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29732993</id>
	<title>fun unemployment facts</title>
	<author>TRRosen</author>
	<datestamp>1255453920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You only have to work two days to qualify for unemployment.<br>You can work full time for over a year and not qualify.<br>You can be disqualified for making over $4500 in three months. Thats 8.65/hr 40 hr/week<br>These are all true facts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You only have to work two days to qualify for unemployment.You can work full time for over a year and not qualify.You can be disqualified for making over $ 4500 in three months .
Thats 8.65/hr 40 hr/weekThese are all true facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You only have to work two days to qualify for unemployment.You can work full time for over a year and not qualify.You can be disqualified for making over $4500 in three months.
Thats 8.65/hr 40 hr/weekThese are all true facts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29726085</id>
	<title>Which is how it works here</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1255350300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government wants you to try to find work, even temp work. After all, any money they don't have to give you is a good thing in their book and temp work can lead to permanent work and so on. So the way it works here is you have to report everything you make. Whatever you make is deducted from your benefits. So if you got work for a week and made more than your benefits, you'd get no benefits that week. Next week no work, you get full benefits, the week after you got a small job that paid $50, you'd get your benefits less $50. Benefits only stop when you get regular work.</p><p>This is win-win. The state wins because it pays out less, and maybe you get off UI faster. You win because it extends your benefits time (any time they aren't paying out) and maybe you get off UI faster.</p><p>Seems really stupid to have a "You make any money you don't get UI," system. That'll do nothing but encourage people to either lie about what they make, or to avoid going and getting any work unless it is regular work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government wants you to try to find work , even temp work .
After all , any money they do n't have to give you is a good thing in their book and temp work can lead to permanent work and so on .
So the way it works here is you have to report everything you make .
Whatever you make is deducted from your benefits .
So if you got work for a week and made more than your benefits , you 'd get no benefits that week .
Next week no work , you get full benefits , the week after you got a small job that paid $ 50 , you 'd get your benefits less $ 50 .
Benefits only stop when you get regular work.This is win-win .
The state wins because it pays out less , and maybe you get off UI faster .
You win because it extends your benefits time ( any time they are n't paying out ) and maybe you get off UI faster.Seems really stupid to have a " You make any money you do n't get UI , " system .
That 'll do nothing but encourage people to either lie about what they make , or to avoid going and getting any work unless it is regular work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government wants you to try to find work, even temp work.
After all, any money they don't have to give you is a good thing in their book and temp work can lead to permanent work and so on.
So the way it works here is you have to report everything you make.
Whatever you make is deducted from your benefits.
So if you got work for a week and made more than your benefits, you'd get no benefits that week.
Next week no work, you get full benefits, the week after you got a small job that paid $50, you'd get your benefits less $50.
Benefits only stop when you get regular work.This is win-win.
The state wins because it pays out less, and maybe you get off UI faster.
You win because it extends your benefits time (any time they aren't paying out) and maybe you get off UI faster.Seems really stupid to have a "You make any money you don't get UI," system.
That'll do nothing but encourage people to either lie about what they make, or to avoid going and getting any work unless it is regular work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724475</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255342560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If she is a lawyer she is likely considered and independent consultant, i.e. self employed, just by profession.</p><p>The revocation of unemployment funds may have nothing to do with adsense income.</p><p>As an independent contractor, it doesn&rsquo;t matter if I make $1/month from Google or lose $2000/month from not working&mdash; I am still not considered unemployed nor do I ever qualify for unemployment benefits.</p><p>I think it is likely a non-story by someone who doesn&rsquo;t know how the system works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If she is a lawyer she is likely considered and independent consultant , i.e .
self employed , just by profession.The revocation of unemployment funds may have nothing to do with adsense income.As an independent contractor , it doesn    t matter if I make $ 1/month from Google or lose $ 2000/month from not working    I am still not considered unemployed nor do I ever qualify for unemployment benefits.I think it is likely a non-story by someone who doesn    t know how the system works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If she is a lawyer she is likely considered and independent consultant, i.e.
self employed, just by profession.The revocation of unemployment funds may have nothing to do with adsense income.As an independent contractor, it doesn’t matter if I make $1/month from Google or lose $2000/month from not working— I am still not considered unemployed nor do I ever qualify for unemployment benefits.I think it is likely a non-story by someone who doesn’t know how the system works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29726797</id>
	<title>Kurt Evans</title>
	<author>kingkurtus</author>
	<datestamp>1255354320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's outrageously offensive and it doesn't make sense.  Money changes hands all the time among friends that isn't taxed.  There are some things that the government just needs to stay out of.  A person should have the right to try to make money with their writing without having to worry about the government taking it away.  Granted, that if you make over a certain amount, you should report that because it's the right thing to do; but otherwise they should leave people alone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's outrageously offensive and it does n't make sense .
Money changes hands all the time among friends that is n't taxed .
There are some things that the government just needs to stay out of .
A person should have the right to try to make money with their writing without having to worry about the government taking it away .
Granted , that if you make over a certain amount , you should report that because it 's the right thing to do ; but otherwise they should leave people alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's outrageously offensive and it doesn't make sense.
Money changes hands all the time among friends that isn't taxed.
There are some things that the government just needs to stay out of.
A person should have the right to try to make money with their writing without having to worry about the government taking it away.
Granted, that if you make over a certain amount, you should report that because it's the right thing to do; but otherwise they should leave people alone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724325</id>
	<title>Re:Nevada is suing me for back unemployment</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1255342020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last year after I was laid off from my job I was unable to even apply for unemployment. The unemployment office was so swamped that they stopped taking applications in person. You had to call a special number to do it. I didn't have a landline phone and and the wait time to get through was longer than the battery of my cell phone would last while on hold (5+ hours). Fortunately I wasn't picky and managed to get a job 2 states away before I maxed out my credit cards and ran out of money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last year after I was laid off from my job I was unable to even apply for unemployment .
The unemployment office was so swamped that they stopped taking applications in person .
You had to call a special number to do it .
I did n't have a landline phone and and the wait time to get through was longer than the battery of my cell phone would last while on hold ( 5 + hours ) .
Fortunately I was n't picky and managed to get a job 2 states away before I maxed out my credit cards and ran out of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last year after I was laid off from my job I was unable to even apply for unemployment.
The unemployment office was so swamped that they stopped taking applications in person.
You had to call a special number to do it.
I didn't have a landline phone and and the wait time to get through was longer than the battery of my cell phone would last while on hold (5+ hours).
Fortunately I wasn't picky and managed to get a job 2 states away before I maxed out my credit cards and ran out of money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723537</id>
	<title>Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps....</title>
	<author>KiahZero</author>
	<datestamp>1255339020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you been paying attention? Lawyers are getting laid off left and right, and the legal profession as a whole is going through one of the worst recessions since the Depression.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you been paying attention ?
Lawyers are getting laid off left and right , and the legal profession as a whole is going through one of the worst recessions since the Depression .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you been paying attention?
Lawyers are getting laid off left and right, and the legal profession as a whole is going through one of the worst recessions since the Depression.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723523</id>
	<title>An Unemployed...  Lawyer?</title>
	<author>blcamp</author>
	<datestamp>1255339020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hard for me to understand how a *lawyer* can be unemployed. Harder still for me to understand how an unemployed lawyer is unable to cut through the government red tape and related BS...  but then again, perhaps that's why she is currently unemployed.</p><p>I do wish her well, though...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hard for me to understand how a * lawyer * can be unemployed .
Harder still for me to understand how an unemployed lawyer is unable to cut through the government red tape and related BS... but then again , perhaps that 's why she is currently unemployed.I do wish her well , though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hard for me to understand how a *lawyer* can be unemployed.
Harder still for me to understand how an unemployed lawyer is unable to cut through the government red tape and related BS...  but then again, perhaps that's why she is currently unemployed.I do wish her well, though...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29729921</id>
	<title>Re:Slow news day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255432860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK I will explain. She earned $1 a day. Here is the UK you are allowed to earn &pound;10 a week before you even have to tell them - that's about $20. It may be more like &pound;15 now. The point is that nobody wants to be bothered about these tiny amounts that someone could earn by helping a friend move furniture or mowing someone's lawn at the weekend. Last time I looked they even listed these things as examples. Nobody would (I assume) want to discourage people from eg helping an elderly neighbour with their shopping for &pound;5 a week, or something like that. Very few formal jobs will pay as little as this per week.</p><p>If you do Avon or something like that you are hoping to get more than that (although you might not). Also you *could* fall foul of the rules about availability for work, although this can depend on how you phrase things to the person behind the desk and / or their attitude (people have been known to have benefits stopped for all kinds of stupid reasons, such as not being able to get to the office to "sign on" because of some crisis).<br>Basically, in the UK this could happen but only by way of mistake - eg a nasty dole worker who just wouldn't accept that it was really only $1 a day.</p><p>She should be able to prove her income by her receipts (or whatever they are called) from AdWords.</p><p>Maybe you don't have this allowed income in the USA, but it seems draconian and unlikely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK I will explain .
She earned $ 1 a day .
Here is the UK you are allowed to earn   10 a week before you even have to tell them - that 's about $ 20 .
It may be more like   15 now .
The point is that nobody wants to be bothered about these tiny amounts that someone could earn by helping a friend move furniture or mowing someone 's lawn at the weekend .
Last time I looked they even listed these things as examples .
Nobody would ( I assume ) want to discourage people from eg helping an elderly neighbour with their shopping for   5 a week , or something like that .
Very few formal jobs will pay as little as this per week.If you do Avon or something like that you are hoping to get more than that ( although you might not ) .
Also you * could * fall foul of the rules about availability for work , although this can depend on how you phrase things to the person behind the desk and / or their attitude ( people have been known to have benefits stopped for all kinds of stupid reasons , such as not being able to get to the office to " sign on " because of some crisis ) .Basically , in the UK this could happen but only by way of mistake - eg a nasty dole worker who just would n't accept that it was really only $ 1 a day.She should be able to prove her income by her receipts ( or whatever they are called ) from AdWords.Maybe you do n't have this allowed income in the USA , but it seems draconian and unlikely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK I will explain.
She earned $1 a day.
Here is the UK you are allowed to earn £10 a week before you even have to tell them - that's about $20.
It may be more like £15 now.
The point is that nobody wants to be bothered about these tiny amounts that someone could earn by helping a friend move furniture or mowing someone's lawn at the weekend.
Last time I looked they even listed these things as examples.
Nobody would (I assume) want to discourage people from eg helping an elderly neighbour with their shopping for £5 a week, or something like that.
Very few formal jobs will pay as little as this per week.If you do Avon or something like that you are hoping to get more than that (although you might not).
Also you *could* fall foul of the rules about availability for work, although this can depend on how you phrase things to the person behind the desk and / or their attitude (people have been known to have benefits stopped for all kinds of stupid reasons, such as not being able to get to the office to "sign on" because of some crisis).Basically, in the UK this could happen but only by way of mistake - eg a nasty dole worker who just wouldn't accept that it was really only $1 a day.She should be able to prove her income by her receipts (or whatever they are called) from AdWords.Maybe you don't have this allowed income in the USA, but it seems draconian and unlikely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29729753</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>Antiocheian</author>
	<datestamp>1255430640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would allow businesses to hire workers at a low salary and let the taxpayers compensate the rest. Everyone looks happy until the unemployment benefit stops and you can no longer live with your current salary.</p><p>I think you would have figured out what is the point of this benefit: it is to help you stay on your feet while finding a real job. The reason people take ``part-time and temporary jobs,, is that they try to find what "suits them best" crossing out manual labor and anything they would consider good enough for illegal aliens only. Doesn't matter to them if these jobs would support a family, a dignified way to live -- what matters is that they were meant for "something greater".</p><p>And so they prefer doing temporary jobs in their university or pretending to be freelancer software developers living off small contracts and donations while time passes by.</p><p>(There is a lot of first hand experience on my posting as you can understand)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would allow businesses to hire workers at a low salary and let the taxpayers compensate the rest .
Everyone looks happy until the unemployment benefit stops and you can no longer live with your current salary.I think you would have figured out what is the point of this benefit : it is to help you stay on your feet while finding a real job .
The reason people take ` ` part-time and temporary jobs, , is that they try to find what " suits them best " crossing out manual labor and anything they would consider good enough for illegal aliens only .
Does n't matter to them if these jobs would support a family , a dignified way to live -- what matters is that they were meant for " something greater " .And so they prefer doing temporary jobs in their university or pretending to be freelancer software developers living off small contracts and donations while time passes by .
( There is a lot of first hand experience on my posting as you can understand )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would allow businesses to hire workers at a low salary and let the taxpayers compensate the rest.
Everyone looks happy until the unemployment benefit stops and you can no longer live with your current salary.I think you would have figured out what is the point of this benefit: it is to help you stay on your feet while finding a real job.
The reason people take ``part-time and temporary jobs,, is that they try to find what "suits them best" crossing out manual labor and anything they would consider good enough for illegal aliens only.
Doesn't matter to them if these jobs would support a family, a dignified way to live -- what matters is that they were meant for "something greater".And so they prefer doing temporary jobs in their university or pretending to be freelancer software developers living off small contracts and donations while time passes by.
(There is a lot of first hand experience on my posting as you can understand)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723777</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>DriedClexler</author>
	<datestamp>1255339860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel like I'm pointing out the elephant in the living room here, but wtf is up with a <b>lawyer</b> collecting unemployment checks?  <b>That</b> is the dickish behavior.  Unemployment insurance is supposed to be for people on hard times due to losing their jobs.  When you make as much as a lawyer does, you should be doing something called "saving money" -- it shouldn't be much of a hardship for you, given that part-time elected officials (such as in state legislatures that don't work the full year) tend to be lawyers <b>because</b> they can so easily take a lot of unpaid time off from work.</p><p>Of course, the unemployment insurance laws may very well not make this distinction, making her within her rights to apply for it, but still, it seems like a slimy thing to do and makes it harder on the people who really need that money.  I mean, what next?  CEOs taking unemployment for the one month between two $50,000/month jobs?</p><p>On top of that, if the other poster is correct that she dutifully *reported* the blogging income, and is a lawyer, meaning she should be able to quickly know the ins and outs of the law -- then she should have known damn well that you're not supposed to collect unemployment while collecting a separate steady income, no matter how small.  She was trying to double-dip: collect unemployment, *and* prohibited extra income on the side.  Knowing this, she should should have turned off that revenue source <i>long</i> ago, not just when she got caught.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel like I 'm pointing out the elephant in the living room here , but wtf is up with a lawyer collecting unemployment checks ?
That is the dickish behavior .
Unemployment insurance is supposed to be for people on hard times due to losing their jobs .
When you make as much as a lawyer does , you should be doing something called " saving money " -- it should n't be much of a hardship for you , given that part-time elected officials ( such as in state legislatures that do n't work the full year ) tend to be lawyers because they can so easily take a lot of unpaid time off from work.Of course , the unemployment insurance laws may very well not make this distinction , making her within her rights to apply for it , but still , it seems like a slimy thing to do and makes it harder on the people who really need that money .
I mean , what next ?
CEOs taking unemployment for the one month between two $ 50,000/month jobs ? On top of that , if the other poster is correct that she dutifully * reported * the blogging income , and is a lawyer , meaning she should be able to quickly know the ins and outs of the law -- then she should have known damn well that you 're not supposed to collect unemployment while collecting a separate steady income , no matter how small .
She was trying to double-dip : collect unemployment , * and * prohibited extra income on the side .
Knowing this , she should should have turned off that revenue source long ago , not just when she got caught .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel like I'm pointing out the elephant in the living room here, but wtf is up with a lawyer collecting unemployment checks?
That is the dickish behavior.
Unemployment insurance is supposed to be for people on hard times due to losing their jobs.
When you make as much as a lawyer does, you should be doing something called "saving money" -- it shouldn't be much of a hardship for you, given that part-time elected officials (such as in state legislatures that don't work the full year) tend to be lawyers because they can so easily take a lot of unpaid time off from work.Of course, the unemployment insurance laws may very well not make this distinction, making her within her rights to apply for it, but still, it seems like a slimy thing to do and makes it harder on the people who really need that money.
I mean, what next?
CEOs taking unemployment for the one month between two $50,000/month jobs?On top of that, if the other poster is correct that she dutifully *reported* the blogging income, and is a lawyer, meaning she should be able to quickly know the ins and outs of the law -- then she should have known damn well that you're not supposed to collect unemployment while collecting a separate steady income, no matter how small.
She was trying to double-dip: collect unemployment, *and* prohibited extra income on the side.
Knowing this, she should should have turned off that revenue source long ago, not just when she got caught.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725573</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255347540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not so much. In most states (states vary, of course), if you took a contract job for a month, you'd lose the unemployment for that month, but when the contract job ended, you'd go back to collecting unemployment, based on the job you had that qualified you for unemployment in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not so much .
In most states ( states vary , of course ) , if you took a contract job for a month , you 'd lose the unemployment for that month , but when the contract job ended , you 'd go back to collecting unemployment , based on the job you had that qualified you for unemployment in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not so much.
In most states (states vary, of course), if you took a contract job for a month, you'd lose the unemployment for that month, but when the contract job ended, you'd go back to collecting unemployment, based on the job you had that qualified you for unemployment in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723375</id>
	<title>Re:So the big question is:</title>
	<author>Volante3192</author>
	<datestamp>1255338300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering minimum wage is $7.25/hr, that's not just a crappy job, that's in violation of Federal law.</p><p>Or, more likely, it wasn't a job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering minimum wage is $ 7.25/hr , that 's not just a crappy job , that 's in violation of Federal law.Or , more likely , it was n't a job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering minimum wage is $7.25/hr, that's not just a crappy job, that's in violation of Federal law.Or, more likely, it wasn't a job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723321</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724359</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1255342140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually unemployment doesn't pay that much, I once took a $9/hr help desk job to find out that Unemployment paid just a bit more than that. I couldn't afford very much on unemployment or that $9/hr job. I got a $50,000 a year programmer job soon after that. Unemployment allows you to try a job, and if you don't like it or it doesn't pay much, a person can quit it and go back on unemployment by filing papers. Yes any income you get is considered a job, and they do count advertising for blogs or collecting donations from friends and family members as income as well.</p><p>Unemployment is working like an insurance, not socialism. People on unemployment are supposed to be looking for work in order to stay on unemployment and at least report four to six jobs applied for per week. But Unemployment sometimes slacks off on the job application checks, but does not slack off when the unemployed starts to earn any sort of money.</p><p>If a person is earning money via a blog, I think they are considered to be self-employed. Doesn't Google file a 1099 Form if the person earns enough money to file it on their taxes? In my experience blog advertising doesn't earn that much money, and even what little you earn gets taxed a lot as well. I think Unemployment considered her to be working at least part-time for that under $300 income, even if it looks like a joke to most people to earn that little in a year and $1 a month salary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually unemployment does n't pay that much , I once took a $ 9/hr help desk job to find out that Unemployment paid just a bit more than that .
I could n't afford very much on unemployment or that $ 9/hr job .
I got a $ 50,000 a year programmer job soon after that .
Unemployment allows you to try a job , and if you do n't like it or it does n't pay much , a person can quit it and go back on unemployment by filing papers .
Yes any income you get is considered a job , and they do count advertising for blogs or collecting donations from friends and family members as income as well.Unemployment is working like an insurance , not socialism .
People on unemployment are supposed to be looking for work in order to stay on unemployment and at least report four to six jobs applied for per week .
But Unemployment sometimes slacks off on the job application checks , but does not slack off when the unemployed starts to earn any sort of money.If a person is earning money via a blog , I think they are considered to be self-employed .
Does n't Google file a 1099 Form if the person earns enough money to file it on their taxes ?
In my experience blog advertising does n't earn that much money , and even what little you earn gets taxed a lot as well .
I think Unemployment considered her to be working at least part-time for that under $ 300 income , even if it looks like a joke to most people to earn that little in a year and $ 1 a month salary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually unemployment doesn't pay that much, I once took a $9/hr help desk job to find out that Unemployment paid just a bit more than that.
I couldn't afford very much on unemployment or that $9/hr job.
I got a $50,000 a year programmer job soon after that.
Unemployment allows you to try a job, and if you don't like it or it doesn't pay much, a person can quit it and go back on unemployment by filing papers.
Yes any income you get is considered a job, and they do count advertising for blogs or collecting donations from friends and family members as income as well.Unemployment is working like an insurance, not socialism.
People on unemployment are supposed to be looking for work in order to stay on unemployment and at least report four to six jobs applied for per week.
But Unemployment sometimes slacks off on the job application checks, but does not slack off when the unemployed starts to earn any sort of money.If a person is earning money via a blog, I think they are considered to be self-employed.
Doesn't Google file a 1099 Form if the person earns enough money to file it on their taxes?
In my experience blog advertising doesn't earn that much money, and even what little you earn gets taxed a lot as well.
I think Unemployment considered her to be working at least part-time for that under $300 income, even if it looks like a joke to most people to earn that little in a year and $1 a month salary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723787</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1255339860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unemployment benefits are meant to help people with no income.</p></div><p>Unemployment benefits are for people who are... unemployed.</p><p>That she has some income shouldn't prevent benefits, especially when that income is next to nothing.  She was averaging $30 a month, that's not exactly making ends-meet.  Stripping her benefits for such a low sum would be akin to stripping unemployment benefits because someone bought you lunch.</p><p>I would feel differently if she were running a blog as a business, or if that blog brought in more money than unemployment would bring in.  If you have already determined that there is a minimum amount of money a person should recieve while looking for another job, any supplimental income should simply reduce the benefits by whatever the supplimental income is, untill the difference is negative - i.e. making more money with the suppliment than full unemployment would give.  Then it is simply re-classified as the primary income and you are considered self-employed.</p><p>To look at it another way, do they strip your unemployment because you're earning 2\% in a savings account?  I should hope not.  That's what this is closer to.  Either way, she was still unemployed, not even self-employed. She paid for the unemployment insurance, she should be able to collect it when she is unemployed.</p><p>I hope she puts ad-sense back up before she is slashdotted, that could make up for a lot of the shit NYC is pulling here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unemployment benefits are meant to help people with no income.Unemployment benefits are for people who are... unemployed.That she has some income should n't prevent benefits , especially when that income is next to nothing .
She was averaging $ 30 a month , that 's not exactly making ends-meet .
Stripping her benefits for such a low sum would be akin to stripping unemployment benefits because someone bought you lunch.I would feel differently if she were running a blog as a business , or if that blog brought in more money than unemployment would bring in .
If you have already determined that there is a minimum amount of money a person should recieve while looking for another job , any supplimental income should simply reduce the benefits by whatever the supplimental income is , untill the difference is negative - i.e .
making more money with the suppliment than full unemployment would give .
Then it is simply re-classified as the primary income and you are considered self-employed.To look at it another way , do they strip your unemployment because you 're earning 2 \ % in a savings account ?
I should hope not .
That 's what this is closer to .
Either way , she was still unemployed , not even self-employed .
She paid for the unemployment insurance , she should be able to collect it when she is unemployed.I hope she puts ad-sense back up before she is slashdotted , that could make up for a lot of the shit NYC is pulling here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unemployment benefits are meant to help people with no income.Unemployment benefits are for people who are... unemployed.That she has some income shouldn't prevent benefits, especially when that income is next to nothing.
She was averaging $30 a month, that's not exactly making ends-meet.
Stripping her benefits for such a low sum would be akin to stripping unemployment benefits because someone bought you lunch.I would feel differently if she were running a blog as a business, or if that blog brought in more money than unemployment would bring in.
If you have already determined that there is a minimum amount of money a person should recieve while looking for another job, any supplimental income should simply reduce the benefits by whatever the supplimental income is, untill the difference is negative - i.e.
making more money with the suppliment than full unemployment would give.
Then it is simply re-classified as the primary income and you are considered self-employed.To look at it another way, do they strip your unemployment because you're earning 2\% in a savings account?
I should hope not.
That's what this is closer to.
Either way, she was still unemployed, not even self-employed.
She paid for the unemployment insurance, she should be able to collect it when she is unemployed.I hope she puts ad-sense back up before she is slashdotted, that could make up for a lot of the shit NYC is pulling here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723797</id>
	<title>Nevada is suing me for back unemployment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255339920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been unemployed for about 2 years now.  I live in backwater Reno, NV and had worked in the gaming industry.  Two strikes against me, I know.  I had been in Silicon Valley for many years, but wanted a cheaper/nicer place to live.  Its nice here, but if you make more than $100,000/year, they think you're some overpaid wallstreet crook.</p><p>Anyways, during the course of my job hunt I formed an LLC so I could accept 1099 work rather than just FT W2.  I add a line to my contact letter that says, "I am available for full-time W2 employment, as well as contract-based 1099 projects."  That's it.  That's the whole deal.</p><p>Once Nevada found out about this they claim I own and operate a company, and are SUING me for 1 year's back unemployment.  Uh, I don't have $12,000 sitting around guys.  That's because I'm UNEMPLOYED.</p><p>I'm guessing that the state is just broke, and looking for every excuse they can to deny any benefit they can.</p><p>I one instant I just went from "moderate democrat" to "conservative republican", too.  Interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been unemployed for about 2 years now .
I live in backwater Reno , NV and had worked in the gaming industry .
Two strikes against me , I know .
I had been in Silicon Valley for many years , but wanted a cheaper/nicer place to live .
Its nice here , but if you make more than $ 100,000/year , they think you 're some overpaid wallstreet crook.Anyways , during the course of my job hunt I formed an LLC so I could accept 1099 work rather than just FT W2 .
I add a line to my contact letter that says , " I am available for full-time W2 employment , as well as contract-based 1099 projects .
" That 's it .
That 's the whole deal.Once Nevada found out about this they claim I own and operate a company , and are SUING me for 1 year 's back unemployment .
Uh , I do n't have $ 12,000 sitting around guys .
That 's because I 'm UNEMPLOYED.I 'm guessing that the state is just broke , and looking for every excuse they can to deny any benefit they can.I one instant I just went from " moderate democrat " to " conservative republican " , too .
Interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been unemployed for about 2 years now.
I live in backwater Reno, NV and had worked in the gaming industry.
Two strikes against me, I know.
I had been in Silicon Valley for many years, but wanted a cheaper/nicer place to live.
Its nice here, but if you make more than $100,000/year, they think you're some overpaid wallstreet crook.Anyways, during the course of my job hunt I formed an LLC so I could accept 1099 work rather than just FT W2.
I add a line to my contact letter that says, "I am available for full-time W2 employment, as well as contract-based 1099 projects.
"  That's it.
That's the whole deal.Once Nevada found out about this they claim I own and operate a company, and are SUING me for 1 year's back unemployment.
Uh, I don't have $12,000 sitting around guys.
That's because I'm UNEMPLOYED.I'm guessing that the state is just broke, and looking for every excuse they can to deny any benefit they can.I one instant I just went from "moderate democrat" to "conservative republican", too.
Interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724719</id>
	<title>Re:Well, all are illegal...</title>
	<author>greatcelerystalk</author>
	<datestamp>1255343640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a general problem with any kind of social service in most parts of the United States. If you start making any money at all, whether or not the unemployment, welfare, SSI/SSDI, etc are a considerable part of you being able to get on your feet, you almost immediately start to lose benefits.

American social service/social insurance programs shoot themselves in the foot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a general problem with any kind of social service in most parts of the United States .
If you start making any money at all , whether or not the unemployment , welfare , SSI/SSDI , etc are a considerable part of you being able to get on your feet , you almost immediately start to lose benefits .
American social service/social insurance programs shoot themselves in the foot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a general problem with any kind of social service in most parts of the United States.
If you start making any money at all, whether or not the unemployment, welfare, SSI/SSDI, etc are a considerable part of you being able to get on your feet, you almost immediately start to lose benefits.
American social service/social insurance programs shoot themselves in the foot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29733585</id>
	<title>Canadian system</title>
	<author>phorm</author>
	<datestamp>1255456680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know the specifics, but last time I checked the Canadian system did make allowances for getting a little side-income while on EI. Of course, it just ends up deducting from what you get in benefits. So you don't get screwed quite as badly (having benefits cut off entirely), but there's not much incentive to "do a little, get a little" in side work while trying to find a better job, best to just keep on that hunt for a real job.</p><p>One thing I seem to remember though is if you find another job that's significantly less pay than your last, you can get some supplemental income to even the difference...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know the specifics , but last time I checked the Canadian system did make allowances for getting a little side-income while on EI .
Of course , it just ends up deducting from what you get in benefits .
So you do n't get screwed quite as badly ( having benefits cut off entirely ) , but there 's not much incentive to " do a little , get a little " in side work while trying to find a better job , best to just keep on that hunt for a real job.One thing I seem to remember though is if you find another job that 's significantly less pay than your last , you can get some supplemental income to even the difference.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know the specifics, but last time I checked the Canadian system did make allowances for getting a little side-income while on EI.
Of course, it just ends up deducting from what you get in benefits.
So you don't get screwed quite as badly (having benefits cut off entirely), but there's not much incentive to "do a little, get a little" in side work while trying to find a better job, best to just keep on that hunt for a real job.One thing I seem to remember though is if you find another job that's significantly less pay than your last, you can get some supplemental income to even the difference...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725149</id>
	<title>Re:Nevada is suing me for back unemployment</title>
	<author>Planesdragon</author>
	<datestamp>1255345680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Once Nevada found out about this they claim I own and operate a company, and are SUING me for 1 year's back unemployment. Uh, I don't have $12,000 sitting around guys. That's because I'm UNEMPLOYED.</p></div><p>So you're in the right.  What's the problem, again?</p><p>Oh, yeah.  Going into a courtroom means you've automatically lost something.  I get it.  You're going to not get all that income from not sitting around collecting unemployment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once Nevada found out about this they claim I own and operate a company , and are SUING me for 1 year 's back unemployment .
Uh , I do n't have $ 12,000 sitting around guys .
That 's because I 'm UNEMPLOYED.So you 're in the right .
What 's the problem , again ? Oh , yeah .
Going into a courtroom means you 've automatically lost something .
I get it .
You 're going to not get all that income from not sitting around collecting unemployment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once Nevada found out about this they claim I own and operate a company, and are SUING me for 1 year's back unemployment.
Uh, I don't have $12,000 sitting around guys.
That's because I'm UNEMPLOYED.So you're in the right.
What's the problem, again?Oh, yeah.
Going into a courtroom means you've automatically lost something.
I get it.
You're going to not get all that income from not sitting around collecting unemployment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724491</id>
	<title>Re:Horay government</title>
	<author>Planesdragon</author>
	<datestamp>1255342620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can't wait until they run Healthcare can you?</p></div><p>The story is not about a poorly RUN system.  It's about a poorly DESIGNED system.  Whole different ball of wax.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't wait until they run Healthcare can you ? The story is not about a poorly RUN system .
It 's about a poorly DESIGNED system .
Whole different ball of wax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't wait until they run Healthcare can you?The story is not about a poorly RUN system.
It's about a poorly DESIGNED system.
Whole different ball of wax.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724433</id>
	<title>Re:Nevada is suing me for back unemployment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255342440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I one instant I just went from "moderate democrat" to "conservative republican", too. Interesting.</p></div></blockquote><p>Ever consider that part of the reason our government needs more money is because we're throwing so much money away on the military industrial complex that makes weapons for a war that will never come and a eternal war on drugs that will erode our civil liberties and fill prisons beyond capacity with nonviolent offenders?  Or perhaps the fact that republican tax cuts favor the rich to the point that the middle class is vanishing due to the widening wealth gap?</p><p>If you are a Republican or Libertarian in this day and age you are literally retarded and are voting against your and your countries best interests.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I one instant I just went from " moderate democrat " to " conservative republican " , too .
Interesting.Ever consider that part of the reason our government needs more money is because we 're throwing so much money away on the military industrial complex that makes weapons for a war that will never come and a eternal war on drugs that will erode our civil liberties and fill prisons beyond capacity with nonviolent offenders ?
Or perhaps the fact that republican tax cuts favor the rich to the point that the middle class is vanishing due to the widening wealth gap ? If you are a Republican or Libertarian in this day and age you are literally retarded and are voting against your and your countries best interests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I one instant I just went from "moderate democrat" to "conservative republican", too.
Interesting.Ever consider that part of the reason our government needs more money is because we're throwing so much money away on the military industrial complex that makes weapons for a war that will never come and a eternal war on drugs that will erode our civil liberties and fill prisons beyond capacity with nonviolent offenders?
Or perhaps the fact that republican tax cuts favor the rich to the point that the middle class is vanishing due to the widening wealth gap?If you are a Republican or Libertarian in this day and age you are literally retarded and are voting against your and your countries best interests.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724091</id>
	<title>Re:Horay government</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1255340880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have YOU ever heard of Medicare?  Or the VA?<br>They're shit.</p><p>Just because they're out there doesn't mean that proponents of government-run health care should be pointing to them as shining beacons.</p><p>Veterans get shit health care, and VAs get shut down all the time because they are vastly underfunded - even though much of their funding comes from private donations.</p><p>Medicare doesn't cover all the necessary health costs someone on Medicare needs covered, not by a long shot.  And in terms of true money in / health care out, it's possibly the LEAST efficient ever.</p><p>The VA and Medicare are fucking paragons of "just getting by" and "passing the buck to the next generation".  Even when it "works" many vets simply have no access to care and Granny is stretching her prescription to cover 2 months instead of 1.</p><p>I'm not saying that the government can/can't run health care.<br>I'm not saying the government should/shouldn't run health care.</p><p>I'm saying that the proponents love to point to those examples, but those examples are such bullshit.  They should be an argument for the opponents, not the proponents.<br>But the opponents of health care reform won't dare raise a voice against the VA or Medicare because they get most of their support from older people.  Older people will be confused by any critique of the government's handling of the VA and Medicare, and will perceive it as an attack against the systems they depend on.</p><p>Thus, the opponents can't point out the bullshit in the proponents' argument "look we already has it - if you didn't like it why do you support it here?".</p><p>I, not giving a shit, am free to point out the bullshit no matter where it comes from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have YOU ever heard of Medicare ?
Or the VA ? They 're shit.Just because they 're out there does n't mean that proponents of government-run health care should be pointing to them as shining beacons.Veterans get shit health care , and VAs get shut down all the time because they are vastly underfunded - even though much of their funding comes from private donations.Medicare does n't cover all the necessary health costs someone on Medicare needs covered , not by a long shot .
And in terms of true money in / health care out , it 's possibly the LEAST efficient ever.The VA and Medicare are fucking paragons of " just getting by " and " passing the buck to the next generation " .
Even when it " works " many vets simply have no access to care and Granny is stretching her prescription to cover 2 months instead of 1.I 'm not saying that the government can/ca n't run health care.I 'm not saying the government should/should n't run health care.I 'm saying that the proponents love to point to those examples , but those examples are such bullshit .
They should be an argument for the opponents , not the proponents.But the opponents of health care reform wo n't dare raise a voice against the VA or Medicare because they get most of their support from older people .
Older people will be confused by any critique of the government 's handling of the VA and Medicare , and will perceive it as an attack against the systems they depend on.Thus , the opponents ca n't point out the bullshit in the proponents ' argument " look we already has it - if you did n't like it why do you support it here ?
" .I , not giving a shit , am free to point out the bullshit no matter where it comes from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have YOU ever heard of Medicare?
Or the VA?They're shit.Just because they're out there doesn't mean that proponents of government-run health care should be pointing to them as shining beacons.Veterans get shit health care, and VAs get shut down all the time because they are vastly underfunded - even though much of their funding comes from private donations.Medicare doesn't cover all the necessary health costs someone on Medicare needs covered, not by a long shot.
And in terms of true money in / health care out, it's possibly the LEAST efficient ever.The VA and Medicare are fucking paragons of "just getting by" and "passing the buck to the next generation".
Even when it "works" many vets simply have no access to care and Granny is stretching her prescription to cover 2 months instead of 1.I'm not saying that the government can/can't run health care.I'm not saying the government should/shouldn't run health care.I'm saying that the proponents love to point to those examples, but those examples are such bullshit.
They should be an argument for the opponents, not the proponents.But the opponents of health care reform won't dare raise a voice against the VA or Medicare because they get most of their support from older people.
Older people will be confused by any critique of the government's handling of the VA and Medicare, and will perceive it as an attack against the systems they depend on.Thus, the opponents can't point out the bullshit in the proponents' argument "look we already has it - if you didn't like it why do you support it here?
".I, not giving a shit, am free to point out the bullshit no matter where it comes from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29729329</id>
	<title>Re:Can somebody make a living on adsense?</title>
	<author>Terrasque</author>
	<datestamp>1255466640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried to put ads on a wiki I was running. Small stuff, maybe 100 visitors per day. Was hoping it could pay for its own hosting at least.</p><p>So far, in around 3 years, I've earned about 10 dollars. Total. Need 100 dollars for google to pay it out.</p><p>This was a wiki about a strategy game, so visitors might be more computer savy than regular web users.</p><p>So, you'll either need a lot more visitors, more gullible users, or a combination.</p><p>Ad views : 250.000 - clicks : 65</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried to put ads on a wiki I was running .
Small stuff , maybe 100 visitors per day .
Was hoping it could pay for its own hosting at least.So far , in around 3 years , I 've earned about 10 dollars .
Total. Need 100 dollars for google to pay it out.This was a wiki about a strategy game , so visitors might be more computer savy than regular web users.So , you 'll either need a lot more visitors , more gullible users , or a combination.Ad views : 250.000 - clicks : 65</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried to put ads on a wiki I was running.
Small stuff, maybe 100 visitors per day.
Was hoping it could pay for its own hosting at least.So far, in around 3 years, I've earned about 10 dollars.
Total. Need 100 dollars for google to pay it out.This was a wiki about a strategy game, so visitors might be more computer savy than regular web users.So, you'll either need a lot more visitors, more gullible users, or a combination.Ad views : 250.000 - clicks : 65</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723749</id>
	<title>Re:An unemployed LAWYER was perhaps....</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1255339740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And nothing of value was lost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And nothing of value was lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And nothing of value was lost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29736581</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255426440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That means that you own a video game distribution center. The fact that you are poorly managing your business and operating at a loss is not the government's fault.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That means that you own a video game distribution center .
The fact that you are poorly managing your business and operating at a loss is not the government 's fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That means that you own a video game distribution center.
The fact that you are poorly managing your business and operating at a loss is not the government's fault.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723427</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255338540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">Goatse</a> [goatse.fr] benefits are meant to help people whose anuses are still tight.</p><p>Others are getting much more than $238 for posing naked. Should they be running for unemployment benefits too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Goatse [ goatse.fr ] benefits are meant to help people whose anuses are still tight.Others are getting much more than $ 238 for posing naked .
Should they be running for unemployment benefits too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goatse [goatse.fr] benefits are meant to help people whose anuses are still tight.Others are getting much more than $238 for posing naked.
Should they be running for unemployment benefits too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29740377</id>
	<title>Re:Well, all are illegal...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255447920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forget, the government likes to keep people on its teat, it's called control.</p><p>look up the bureau of indian affairs sometime. Any tribe that tries to better itself gets COMPLETELY cut off, so they fall back right away, unless they build a casino on their land, which are now proving to not be such a good thing, as tribes are being broken up as a result (claiming someone has weak ancestry or isnt "pure enough", usually by those who have dubious ties to begin with, and banishing them from the tribe, just to take a larger cut.) Thus these small tribes end up falling back on government aid and being forced into poverty. Same goes for many on welfare, it's a bitch to get off of welfare, because the second you make too much money, they completely cut you off, and then you fall back into even worse poverty.</p><p>This isnt an accident, nor is it stupidity, it's quite intentional. It's also partially the reason there's an ever growing divide between the haves and the have nots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forget , the government likes to keep people on its teat , it 's called control.look up the bureau of indian affairs sometime .
Any tribe that tries to better itself gets COMPLETELY cut off , so they fall back right away , unless they build a casino on their land , which are now proving to not be such a good thing , as tribes are being broken up as a result ( claiming someone has weak ancestry or isnt " pure enough " , usually by those who have dubious ties to begin with , and banishing them from the tribe , just to take a larger cut .
) Thus these small tribes end up falling back on government aid and being forced into poverty .
Same goes for many on welfare , it 's a bitch to get off of welfare , because the second you make too much money , they completely cut you off , and then you fall back into even worse poverty.This isnt an accident , nor is it stupidity , it 's quite intentional .
It 's also partially the reason there 's an ever growing divide between the haves and the have nots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forget, the government likes to keep people on its teat, it's called control.look up the bureau of indian affairs sometime.
Any tribe that tries to better itself gets COMPLETELY cut off, so they fall back right away, unless they build a casino on their land, which are now proving to not be such a good thing, as tribes are being broken up as a result (claiming someone has weak ancestry or isnt "pure enough", usually by those who have dubious ties to begin with, and banishing them from the tribe, just to take a larger cut.
) Thus these small tribes end up falling back on government aid and being forced into poverty.
Same goes for many on welfare, it's a bitch to get off of welfare, because the second you make too much money, they completely cut you off, and then you fall back into even worse poverty.This isnt an accident, nor is it stupidity, it's quite intentional.
It's also partially the reason there's an ever growing divide between the haves and the have nots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723913</id>
	<title>Also work with disability pay</title>
	<author>Itninja</author>
	<datestamp>1255340280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>A similar thing happened to my Mom a while ago. She was injured on the job and taking L&amp;I pay. With all her spare time I helped her set up a blog. Eventually she put Google ads on it and started raking in the big bucks (to the tune of about $3/month). After a few months of this, L&amp;I got wind of it and claimed that this proved she was no longer injured and therefore entitled to no benefits.<br> <br>She fought this decision and (eventually) won by pointing out that, even though her ads were 'making' money, she had never been paid since her ads never equaled $100 or more (as required by Google). If she had ever reached the $100 mark (even if it had taken years) she probably would have been out of luck.<br> <br>
But in her case, it all worked out well in the end. Her injury was due to and incident of workplace violence where her employer had been warned of the danger multiple times in the past (but did nothing to protect their people). She settled just a few days ago for $500K.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A similar thing happened to my Mom a while ago .
She was injured on the job and taking L&amp;I pay .
With all her spare time I helped her set up a blog .
Eventually she put Google ads on it and started raking in the big bucks ( to the tune of about $ 3/month ) .
After a few months of this , L&amp;I got wind of it and claimed that this proved she was no longer injured and therefore entitled to no benefits .
She fought this decision and ( eventually ) won by pointing out that , even though her ads were 'making ' money , she had never been paid since her ads never equaled $ 100 or more ( as required by Google ) .
If she had ever reached the $ 100 mark ( even if it had taken years ) she probably would have been out of luck .
But in her case , it all worked out well in the end .
Her injury was due to and incident of workplace violence where her employer had been warned of the danger multiple times in the past ( but did nothing to protect their people ) .
She settled just a few days ago for $ 500K .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A similar thing happened to my Mom a while ago.
She was injured on the job and taking L&amp;I pay.
With all her spare time I helped her set up a blog.
Eventually she put Google ads on it and started raking in the big bucks (to the tune of about $3/month).
After a few months of this, L&amp;I got wind of it and claimed that this proved she was no longer injured and therefore entitled to no benefits.
She fought this decision and (eventually) won by pointing out that, even though her ads were 'making' money, she had never been paid since her ads never equaled $100 or more (as required by Google).
If she had ever reached the $100 mark (even if it had taken years) she probably would have been out of luck.
But in her case, it all worked out well in the end.
Her injury was due to and incident of workplace violence where her employer had been warned of the danger multiple times in the past (but did nothing to protect their people).
She settled just a few days ago for $500K.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724643</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>Lord Kano</author>
	<datestamp>1255343280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>All they had to do was deduct $238 from one of her checks, but there's no option to do that with unemployment. The second you report any income, regardless of the source, you're employed.</i></p><p>Not where I live. If I made $50 when I was laid off, my unemployment check would be $50 less and that $50 would remain available to me for later claims.</p><p>LK</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All they had to do was deduct $ 238 from one of her checks , but there 's no option to do that with unemployment .
The second you report any income , regardless of the source , you 're employed.Not where I live .
If I made $ 50 when I was laid off , my unemployment check would be $ 50 less and that $ 50 would remain available to me for later claims.LK</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All they had to do was deduct $238 from one of her checks, but there's no option to do that with unemployment.
The second you report any income, regardless of the source, you're employed.Not where I live.
If I made $50 when I was laid off, my unemployment check would be $50 less and that $50 would remain available to me for later claims.LK</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725295</id>
	<title>Re:Horay government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255346400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heh. I don't hear those fat fuckers in the senate complaining about their publicly run health care plan either, for all their protests that the Government couldn't possibly run a good health care plan. Yeah well if we gave everyone the plan those bastards got, the government surely would go bankrupt, but they'll continue to vote to extend those benefits and raise their salaries while the rest of the country burns.
<p>
My health care overhaul plan would state that no employee of the Federal Government may enjoy any health care that is any way better than that enjoyed by the lest privileged citizen. That'd sort THAT mess out fast enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh .
I do n't hear those fat fuckers in the senate complaining about their publicly run health care plan either , for all their protests that the Government could n't possibly run a good health care plan .
Yeah well if we gave everyone the plan those bastards got , the government surely would go bankrupt , but they 'll continue to vote to extend those benefits and raise their salaries while the rest of the country burns .
My health care overhaul plan would state that no employee of the Federal Government may enjoy any health care that is any way better than that enjoyed by the lest privileged citizen .
That 'd sort THAT mess out fast enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh.
I don't hear those fat fuckers in the senate complaining about their publicly run health care plan either, for all their protests that the Government couldn't possibly run a good health care plan.
Yeah well if we gave everyone the plan those bastards got, the government surely would go bankrupt, but they'll continue to vote to extend those benefits and raise their salaries while the rest of the country burns.
My health care overhaul plan would state that no employee of the Federal Government may enjoy any health care that is any way better than that enjoyed by the lest privileged citizen.
That'd sort THAT mess out fast enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725211</id>
	<title>Probably redundant, but...</title>
	<author>TDyl</author>
	<datestamp>1255345920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it's only a lawyer for $YOUR\_CHOICE\_OF\_DEITY sake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's only a lawyer for $ YOUR \ _CHOICE \ _OF \ _DEITY sake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's only a lawyer for $YOUR\_CHOICE\_OF\_DEITY sake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725895</id>
	<title>Re:Is it really?</title>
	<author>Ifni</author>
	<datestamp>1255349400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is stunning, though, is the extent. I recently had a judgement from unemployment lost in processing and had to talk to a supervisor to get a new one sent out. He called me back to say that he had *personally* gone down to the typist pool to have them retype it up to be sent out. A pool of typists? In the 21st century? Really? This was for a form letter with various parts filled in, BTW, not for some completely new dictated document or something that you might need to type from scratch. They have a web site, for crying out loud, and yet they are still stuck in the 50s.</p><p>You want to know why government agencies are overwhelmed even when their isn't a crisis, this might just be one place to look, and it has little to do with budget (I strongly suspect a document management system and some printers costs less than a room full of typists).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is stunning , though , is the extent .
I recently had a judgement from unemployment lost in processing and had to talk to a supervisor to get a new one sent out .
He called me back to say that he had * personally * gone down to the typist pool to have them retype it up to be sent out .
A pool of typists ?
In the 21st century ?
Really ? This was for a form letter with various parts filled in , BTW , not for some completely new dictated document or something that you might need to type from scratch .
They have a web site , for crying out loud , and yet they are still stuck in the 50s.You want to know why government agencies are overwhelmed even when their is n't a crisis , this might just be one place to look , and it has little to do with budget ( I strongly suspect a document management system and some printers costs less than a room full of typists ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is stunning, though, is the extent.
I recently had a judgement from unemployment lost in processing and had to talk to a supervisor to get a new one sent out.
He called me back to say that he had *personally* gone down to the typist pool to have them retype it up to be sent out.
A pool of typists?
In the 21st century?
Really? This was for a form letter with various parts filled in, BTW, not for some completely new dictated document or something that you might need to type from scratch.
They have a web site, for crying out loud, and yet they are still stuck in the 50s.You want to know why government agencies are overwhelmed even when their isn't a crisis, this might just be one place to look, and it has little to do with budget (I strongly suspect a document management system and some printers costs less than a room full of typists).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725413</id>
	<title>idiotic, but that's how UI works...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255346820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the main reasons that UI works this way is that it is that it is an employer based insurance scheme (not an employee based insurance scheme).  The employer pays into the system and gets rated based on their record of not letting people go (theoretically "good" employers that don't fire people all the time will pay a lower rate than "bad" employers and make them more competitive).  Unfortunatly, when there is no previous employer, there's nobody to ding with increased rates.  Rather than just let the insurance fund slowly become insolvent when there is no previous employer to soak, they just try to deny benefits to anyone that wants benefits, but they can't stick the costs anywhere.</p><p>True story, it happened to a friend of mine that owns a small business (2 employee mom-pop shop). One of their employees quit because they were going to move.  My friend's insurance gets ding when the employee claims uninsurance benefits.  The way the code is written when they grant benefits, someone has to get dinged.  Even though my friend didn't do anything wrong, because her employee quit because the employee wanted to move, yet claimed benefits anyhow, her rating was dinged.  Now my friend is in a pickle because her UI rate goes up, her employee quit, she just had a baby and now has to hire a new employee and train them too in her copious spare time.  She was planning to cut back hours, but now not so much.  Not that the UI increase is that much (probably will only amount to about $400/year more), but she's losing money right now ant this is just insult to injury.  I'm just wondering how small businesses will survive in this economy.  The feds constantly extend UI benefits, but there's no letting up on the small businesses that fund the UI system.</p><p>Sad that it comes down to it as "us" vs "them" on who can survive in this economy.  Small businesses (even the ones that are trying to do right) are taking it in the tooth...</p><p>If you are self employed, a student, or otherwize, the fund has nobody to ding and they will do their darndest to deny you benefits.</p><p>FYI, if you are wondering how you can quit and still claim UI benefits, claim you quit because you had a good reason (like to move to a cheaper apartment far from your current job, or closer to your family to take care of you whilst you are unemployed), apparently that's a good enough reason to stick it to your previous employer (at least in California).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the main reasons that UI works this way is that it is that it is an employer based insurance scheme ( not an employee based insurance scheme ) .
The employer pays into the system and gets rated based on their record of not letting people go ( theoretically " good " employers that do n't fire people all the time will pay a lower rate than " bad " employers and make them more competitive ) .
Unfortunatly , when there is no previous employer , there 's nobody to ding with increased rates .
Rather than just let the insurance fund slowly become insolvent when there is no previous employer to soak , they just try to deny benefits to anyone that wants benefits , but they ca n't stick the costs anywhere.True story , it happened to a friend of mine that owns a small business ( 2 employee mom-pop shop ) .
One of their employees quit because they were going to move .
My friend 's insurance gets ding when the employee claims uninsurance benefits .
The way the code is written when they grant benefits , someone has to get dinged .
Even though my friend did n't do anything wrong , because her employee quit because the employee wanted to move , yet claimed benefits anyhow , her rating was dinged .
Now my friend is in a pickle because her UI rate goes up , her employee quit , she just had a baby and now has to hire a new employee and train them too in her copious spare time .
She was planning to cut back hours , but now not so much .
Not that the UI increase is that much ( probably will only amount to about $ 400/year more ) , but she 's losing money right now ant this is just insult to injury .
I 'm just wondering how small businesses will survive in this economy .
The feds constantly extend UI benefits , but there 's no letting up on the small businesses that fund the UI system.Sad that it comes down to it as " us " vs " them " on who can survive in this economy .
Small businesses ( even the ones that are trying to do right ) are taking it in the tooth...If you are self employed , a student , or otherwize , the fund has nobody to ding and they will do their darndest to deny you benefits.FYI , if you are wondering how you can quit and still claim UI benefits , claim you quit because you had a good reason ( like to move to a cheaper apartment far from your current job , or closer to your family to take care of you whilst you are unemployed ) , apparently that 's a good enough reason to stick it to your previous employer ( at least in California ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the main reasons that UI works this way is that it is that it is an employer based insurance scheme (not an employee based insurance scheme).
The employer pays into the system and gets rated based on their record of not letting people go (theoretically "good" employers that don't fire people all the time will pay a lower rate than "bad" employers and make them more competitive).
Unfortunatly, when there is no previous employer, there's nobody to ding with increased rates.
Rather than just let the insurance fund slowly become insolvent when there is no previous employer to soak, they just try to deny benefits to anyone that wants benefits, but they can't stick the costs anywhere.True story, it happened to a friend of mine that owns a small business (2 employee mom-pop shop).
One of their employees quit because they were going to move.
My friend's insurance gets ding when the employee claims uninsurance benefits.
The way the code is written when they grant benefits, someone has to get dinged.
Even though my friend didn't do anything wrong, because her employee quit because the employee wanted to move, yet claimed benefits anyhow, her rating was dinged.
Now my friend is in a pickle because her UI rate goes up, her employee quit, she just had a baby and now has to hire a new employee and train them too in her copious spare time.
She was planning to cut back hours, but now not so much.
Not that the UI increase is that much (probably will only amount to about $400/year more), but she's losing money right now ant this is just insult to injury.
I'm just wondering how small businesses will survive in this economy.
The feds constantly extend UI benefits, but there's no letting up on the small businesses that fund the UI system.Sad that it comes down to it as "us" vs "them" on who can survive in this economy.
Small businesses (even the ones that are trying to do right) are taking it in the tooth...If you are self employed, a student, or otherwize, the fund has nobody to ding and they will do their darndest to deny you benefits.FYI, if you are wondering how you can quit and still claim UI benefits, claim you quit because you had a good reason (like to move to a cheaper apartment far from your current job, or closer to your family to take care of you whilst you are unemployed), apparently that's a good enough reason to stick it to your previous employer (at least in California).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29732039</id>
	<title>Mental Note</title>
	<author>Cro Magnon</author>
	<datestamp>1255449480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next time I'm unemployed, don't mention that I found 2 cents on the sidewalk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next time I 'm unemployed , do n't mention that I found 2 cents on the sidewalk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next time I'm unemployed, don't mention that I found 2 cents on the sidewalk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724777</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1255343880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's exactly how Ohio law works:<br> <i>You must report earnings for services performed and any income paid or payable to you while you are claiming unemployment benefits.<br> <br>

If you work part-time or perform odd jobs during the weeks for which you file for unemployment benefits, you may still be paid unemployment benefits if your gross earnings are less than your weekly benefit amount. You must report gross earnings for the week (Sunday through Saturday) in which it is earned, even if you have not yet been paid.<br> <br>

If your earnings are less than your weekly benefit amount, Ohio law allows you an exemption of 20 percent your weekly benefit amount before a deduction is made.<br> </i> <a href="http://jfs.ohio.gov/unemp\_comp\_faq/faq\_elig\_maintain2.stm#EarningsAndIncome" title="ohio.gov">linky</a> [ohio.gov] <br> <br>I'm actually surprised NY law is different in that it is the logical way to encourage people to attempt to get off the dole.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's exactly how Ohio law works : You must report earnings for services performed and any income paid or payable to you while you are claiming unemployment benefits .
If you work part-time or perform odd jobs during the weeks for which you file for unemployment benefits , you may still be paid unemployment benefits if your gross earnings are less than your weekly benefit amount .
You must report gross earnings for the week ( Sunday through Saturday ) in which it is earned , even if you have not yet been paid .
If your earnings are less than your weekly benefit amount , Ohio law allows you an exemption of 20 percent your weekly benefit amount before a deduction is made .
linky [ ohio.gov ] I 'm actually surprised NY law is different in that it is the logical way to encourage people to attempt to get off the dole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's exactly how Ohio law works: You must report earnings for services performed and any income paid or payable to you while you are claiming unemployment benefits.
If you work part-time or perform odd jobs during the weeks for which you file for unemployment benefits, you may still be paid unemployment benefits if your gross earnings are less than your weekly benefit amount.
You must report gross earnings for the week (Sunday through Saturday) in which it is earned, even if you have not yet been paid.
If your earnings are less than your weekly benefit amount, Ohio law allows you an exemption of 20 percent your weekly benefit amount before a deduction is made.
linky [ohio.gov]  I'm actually surprised NY law is different in that it is the logical way to encourage people to attempt to get off the dole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724013</id>
	<title>A friend of mine in NYC was in a similar situation</title>
	<author>Bourdain</author>
	<datestamp>1255340580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A friend of mine was laid off several weeks ago and he was supposed to start teaching a small class at a local university in NYC just as a lecturer making a nominal amount per week for 2-3 hours of work (perhaps 100-200 or so / week, spread over two days).</p><p>Since NYS unemployment law counts a partial day of work as a full day, regardless of how much money it is, he had to withdraw from teaching the course because his loss in unemployment benefits greatly exceeded his income as a lecturer.</p><p>You just have to love incentive misalignment -- it's a government specialty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A friend of mine was laid off several weeks ago and he was supposed to start teaching a small class at a local university in NYC just as a lecturer making a nominal amount per week for 2-3 hours of work ( perhaps 100-200 or so / week , spread over two days ) .Since NYS unemployment law counts a partial day of work as a full day , regardless of how much money it is , he had to withdraw from teaching the course because his loss in unemployment benefits greatly exceeded his income as a lecturer.You just have to love incentive misalignment -- it 's a government specialty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A friend of mine was laid off several weeks ago and he was supposed to start teaching a small class at a local university in NYC just as a lecturer making a nominal amount per week for 2-3 hours of work (perhaps 100-200 or so / week, spread over two days).Since NYS unemployment law counts a partial day of work as a full day, regardless of how much money it is, he had to withdraw from teaching the course because his loss in unemployment benefits greatly exceeded his income as a lecturer.You just have to love incentive misalignment -- it's a government specialty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723541</id>
	<title>Re:The state is correct</title>
	<author>gnick</author>
	<datestamp>1255339020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right - She's self-employed.  Just like that guy you walk-past every day who holds up a cardboard sign asking for help and eats dog food.</p><p>In fairness though, it sounds like his business model is better than hers.</p><p>Memo to self - If I'm ever unfortunate enough to need unemployment, do NOT let ANYONE pay me for ANYTHING.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right - She 's self-employed .
Just like that guy you walk-past every day who holds up a cardboard sign asking for help and eats dog food.In fairness though , it sounds like his business model is better than hers.Memo to self - If I 'm ever unfortunate enough to need unemployment , do NOT let ANYONE pay me for ANYTHING .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right - She's self-employed.
Just like that guy you walk-past every day who holds up a cardboard sign asking for help and eats dog food.In fairness though, it sounds like his business model is better than hers.Memo to self - If I'm ever unfortunate enough to need unemployment, do NOT let ANYONE pay me for ANYTHING.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724017
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724343
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29727597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29727177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29736581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29726085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29728741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724463
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29727355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29729187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29729641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29726511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29734493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29733585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29726985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29740377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29734923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29727329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29729521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29730899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29731609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29730573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29734877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29729753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29729921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29727333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29729329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29732451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1814241_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29730345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29749707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1814241.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725895
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29727177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723805
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1814241.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724651
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1814241.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724241
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1814241.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723629
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725295
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724091
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723713
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29730345
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29749707
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29726985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723711
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1814241.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723791
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724373
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725573
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724393
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29733585
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724601
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724777
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724343
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29729753
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29727597
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724643
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723787
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29729641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723429
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29734493
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29727333
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723777
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724161
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724621
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725191
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724475
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723669
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723837
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724805
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29729521
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724379
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29736581
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724797
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725723
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724303
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724215
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725325
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723541
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724463
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29727355
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724477
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29726511
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29728741
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1814241.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723671
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1814241.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723507
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1814241.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723401
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1814241.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29726661
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1814241.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724009
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1814241.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29729921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723441
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723449
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29732451
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724081
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724719
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29726085
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29740377
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723499
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1814241.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29729329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29729187
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1814241.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723453
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1814241.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29732361
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1814241.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723675
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723537
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29731609
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724421
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723749
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723869
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1814241.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724037
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1814241.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29727329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29730573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724433
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29734923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29730899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29734877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724325
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1814241.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723375
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1814241.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724447
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1814241.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724013
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1814241.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724633
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1814241.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29724015
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725847
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725121
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1814241.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29725127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723851
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1814241.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1814241.29723845
</commentlist>
</conversation>
