<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_14_016257</id>
	<title>Yet Another Premature Declaration of Email's Death</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1255523280000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>mvip tips the latest in a long line of <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970203803904574431151489408372.html">premature announcements of the demise of email</a>. <i>"The Wall Street Journal article Why Email No Longer Rules is making the rounds online. Fast Company provided a fast response, highlighting the <a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/kit-eaton/technomix/email-phenomenon-its-last-legs">technical shortcomings of trying to replace email</a> with Facebook and Twitter (where do the attachments go?). Email Service Guide points out that Facebook and Twitter are <a href="http://www.emailserviceguide.com/2009/10/the-end-of-email-predicted-wrong-as-usual/">ineffective for one-off communications</a>. With Google Wave on the horizon, we'll probably have to go through the whole charade yet again."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>mvip tips the latest in a long line of premature announcements of the demise of email .
" The Wall Street Journal article Why Email No Longer Rules is making the rounds online .
Fast Company provided a fast response , highlighting the technical shortcomings of trying to replace email with Facebook and Twitter ( where do the attachments go ? ) .
Email Service Guide points out that Facebook and Twitter are ineffective for one-off communications .
With Google Wave on the horizon , we 'll probably have to go through the whole charade yet again .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mvip tips the latest in a long line of premature announcements of the demise of email.
"The Wall Street Journal article Why Email No Longer Rules is making the rounds online.
Fast Company provided a fast response, highlighting the technical shortcomings of trying to replace email with Facebook and Twitter (where do the attachments go?).
Email Service Guide points out that Facebook and Twitter are ineffective for one-off communications.
With Google Wave on the horizon, we'll probably have to go through the whole charade yet again.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744627</id>
	<title>mail server</title>
	<author>lavardo</author>
	<datestamp>1255534800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I say because they busted their exchange server and are complaining.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I say because they busted their exchange server and are complaining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say because they busted their exchange server and are complaining.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745311</id>
	<title>Re:Good. Now leave me alone.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255537500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is fecesbook you fucking idiot? Some kind of bastardized, cool version of Facebook? Kinda like Micr0$ukz or Linsux?!?!?
<br> <br>
Keep going, oldie. Keep yelling the "Get off my lawn". Retard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is fecesbook you fucking idiot ?
Some kind of bastardized , cool version of Facebook ?
Kinda like Micr0 $ ukz or Linsux ? ! ? ! ?
Keep going , oldie .
Keep yelling the " Get off my lawn " .
Retard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is fecesbook you fucking idiot?
Some kind of bastardized, cool version of Facebook?
Kinda like Micr0$ukz or Linsux?!?!?
Keep going, oldie.
Keep yelling the "Get off my lawn".
Retard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743849</id>
	<title>Help! What do I do next?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255531440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After reading the article I deleted all of my email accounts.  Then I went to sign up to this Facebook thing and it asked for my email address!  What do I do now?</p><p>Posted as AC because I've forgotten my password but haven't got anywhere to send the reminder to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p><p>I was going to ask this question on the WSJ site but when I tried to sign up to post comments, it asked for my email address too!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading the article I deleted all of my email accounts .
Then I went to sign up to this Facebook thing and it asked for my email address !
What do I do now ? Posted as AC because I 've forgotten my password but have n't got anywhere to send the reminder to : - ( I was going to ask this question on the WSJ site but when I tried to sign up to post comments , it asked for my email address too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading the article I deleted all of my email accounts.
Then I went to sign up to this Facebook thing and it asked for my email address!
What do I do now?Posted as AC because I've forgotten my password but haven't got anywhere to send the reminder to :-(I was going to ask this question on the WSJ site but when I tried to sign up to post comments, it asked for my email address too!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744261</id>
	<title>The march or technology</title>
	<author>AlpineR</author>
	<datestamp>1255533240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Twitter and Facebook will replace email just like email replaced the telephone. And the telephone replaced paper mail.</p><p>Seriously. We still use those older technologies for certain things. But some of the jobs they were asked to perform before have been reassigned to new tools.</p><p>Telephone was better than paper mail for conversations that needed lots of back-and-forth communication. Email was better than telephone for correspondence that was detailed yet not time-critical. Facebook is better than email for updates that will interest your friends if they have a spare moment but aren't worth bothering everybody in your address book or starting an accidental reply-all storm.</p><p>So I think the author is right that we've reached the end of the era when every communication task will get shoehorned into email. But email will continue to do what it's best at (and a few things it's not) for a long time to come.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Twitter and Facebook will replace email just like email replaced the telephone .
And the telephone replaced paper mail.Seriously .
We still use those older technologies for certain things .
But some of the jobs they were asked to perform before have been reassigned to new tools.Telephone was better than paper mail for conversations that needed lots of back-and-forth communication .
Email was better than telephone for correspondence that was detailed yet not time-critical .
Facebook is better than email for updates that will interest your friends if they have a spare moment but are n't worth bothering everybody in your address book or starting an accidental reply-all storm.So I think the author is right that we 've reached the end of the era when every communication task will get shoehorned into email .
But email will continue to do what it 's best at ( and a few things it 's not ) for a long time to come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Twitter and Facebook will replace email just like email replaced the telephone.
And the telephone replaced paper mail.Seriously.
We still use those older technologies for certain things.
But some of the jobs they were asked to perform before have been reassigned to new tools.Telephone was better than paper mail for conversations that needed lots of back-and-forth communication.
Email was better than telephone for correspondence that was detailed yet not time-critical.
Facebook is better than email for updates that will interest your friends if they have a spare moment but aren't worth bothering everybody in your address book or starting an accidental reply-all storm.So I think the author is right that we've reached the end of the era when every communication task will get shoehorned into email.
But email will continue to do what it's best at (and a few things it's not) for a long time to come.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743635</id>
	<title>Re:The Right Tool for the Right Job</title>
	<author>Dragonslicer</author>
	<datestamp>1255530420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nothing kills productivity more than IM. I'm astonished that businesses use it, it makes very little sense.</p></div><p>In addition to what the other posts said, IM is good for sending bits of code to other programmers to look at. Sending code over the phone doesn't work as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing kills productivity more than IM .
I 'm astonished that businesses use it , it makes very little sense.In addition to what the other posts said , IM is good for sending bits of code to other programmers to look at .
Sending code over the phone does n't work as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing kills productivity more than IM.
I'm astonished that businesses use it, it makes very little sense.In addition to what the other posts said, IM is good for sending bits of code to other programmers to look at.
Sending code over the phone doesn't work as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743559</id>
	<title>I've said it before and I'll say it again.</title>
	<author>NoPantsJim</author>
	<datestamp>1255529940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1359773&amp;cid=29333579" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1359773&amp;cid=29333579</a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1359773&amp;cid = 29333579 [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1359773&amp;cid=29333579 [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744115</id>
	<title>Wow does anyone still use</title>
	<author>Big Hairy Ian</author>
	<datestamp>1255532580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Twitter?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Twitter ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Twitter?
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743157</id>
	<title>Yet another misleading title</title>
	<author>Roland Deschene</author>
	<datestamp>1255527180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article in question is not saying email is dying.  In fact, it says email usage is growing:</p><p>&gt;  Little wonder that while email continues to grow, other types of communication services are growing far faster.</p><p>No, not "dying".   Just perhaps not peoples first choice for today's on-line communications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article in question is not saying email is dying .
In fact , it says email usage is growing : &gt; Little wonder that while email continues to grow , other types of communication services are growing far faster.No , not " dying " .
Just perhaps not peoples first choice for today 's on-line communications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article in question is not saying email is dying.
In fact, it says email usage is growing:&gt;  Little wonder that while email continues to grow, other types of communication services are growing far faster.No, not "dying".
Just perhaps not peoples first choice for today's on-line communications.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745001</id>
	<title>Irony</title>
	<author>ubrgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1255536240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The guy probably emailed the story in to his editors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The guy probably emailed the story in to his editors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guy probably emailed the story in to his editors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745607</id>
	<title>Re:Email is dead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255538640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, because people who use IM are telepathic and can pull the answers directly from your brain before you want to provide them the information.</p><p>Or maybe that new feature in which as soon as you receive an IM, they get instant access to hidden webcams and microphones in your apartment where they get to yell at you to respond and stop wasting your time talking to someone else.</p><p>Seriously though, just because the protocol is instant doesn't meant that there is a requirement to instantly respond.  Maybe if you deal with 13 year olds all the time you'll get them spamming you with messages, but sane adults can deal with waiting.  We use an IM client here at work with no issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because people who use IM are telepathic and can pull the answers directly from your brain before you want to provide them the information.Or maybe that new feature in which as soon as you receive an IM , they get instant access to hidden webcams and microphones in your apartment where they get to yell at you to respond and stop wasting your time talking to someone else.Seriously though , just because the protocol is instant does n't meant that there is a requirement to instantly respond .
Maybe if you deal with 13 year olds all the time you 'll get them spamming you with messages , but sane adults can deal with waiting .
We use an IM client here at work with no issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because people who use IM are telepathic and can pull the answers directly from your brain before you want to provide them the information.Or maybe that new feature in which as soon as you receive an IM, they get instant access to hidden webcams and microphones in your apartment where they get to yell at you to respond and stop wasting your time talking to someone else.Seriously though, just because the protocol is instant doesn't meant that there is a requirement to instantly respond.
Maybe if you deal with 13 year olds all the time you'll get them spamming you with messages, but sane adults can deal with waiting.
We use an IM client here at work with no issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744205</id>
	<title>Re:The Right Tool for the Right Job</title>
	<author>shock1970</author>
	<datestamp>1255533000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've noticed since I've been on facebook that the number of emails I get per day has gone down.  Facebook is very useful for sharing thoughts and information with friends and family, when the importance of someone seeing your message isn't a priority.  If it's a friend or family member and the message is important I'll either use FB mail or regular email, though I feel regular email is more reliable and its more likely that someone will check their email before their FB page.<br> <br>

Though I find myself using regular email less and less, its still the best way to send/receive attachments as well as to get periodic notifications, newsletters, ads, etc.<br> <br>

For immediate communication and for short question/answer engagements, so typical in a work environment, IM works the best.  But there's no gaurantee I'll be right there to get the message. The same goes for SMS messaging.<br> <br>

But if I really want to communicate with someone right away where I want confirmation of my message and the priority of the message is high... and call me old fashioned if you wish... I use the phone.  The best thing about phone calls is that you get the message across, and you know the recipient receives the message if you are there talking to them face to face.  Even though you might not get the response you need right away, you usually come away with getting a commitment to the response right away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've noticed since I 've been on facebook that the number of emails I get per day has gone down .
Facebook is very useful for sharing thoughts and information with friends and family , when the importance of someone seeing your message is n't a priority .
If it 's a friend or family member and the message is important I 'll either use FB mail or regular email , though I feel regular email is more reliable and its more likely that someone will check their email before their FB page .
Though I find myself using regular email less and less , its still the best way to send/receive attachments as well as to get periodic notifications , newsletters , ads , etc .
For immediate communication and for short question/answer engagements , so typical in a work environment , IM works the best .
But there 's no gaurantee I 'll be right there to get the message .
The same goes for SMS messaging .
But if I really want to communicate with someone right away where I want confirmation of my message and the priority of the message is high... and call me old fashioned if you wish... I use the phone .
The best thing about phone calls is that you get the message across , and you know the recipient receives the message if you are there talking to them face to face .
Even though you might not get the response you need right away , you usually come away with getting a commitment to the response right away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've noticed since I've been on facebook that the number of emails I get per day has gone down.
Facebook is very useful for sharing thoughts and information with friends and family, when the importance of someone seeing your message isn't a priority.
If it's a friend or family member and the message is important I'll either use FB mail or regular email, though I feel regular email is more reliable and its more likely that someone will check their email before their FB page.
Though I find myself using regular email less and less, its still the best way to send/receive attachments as well as to get periodic notifications, newsletters, ads, etc.
For immediate communication and for short question/answer engagements, so typical in a work environment, IM works the best.
But there's no gaurantee I'll be right there to get the message.
The same goes for SMS messaging.
But if I really want to communicate with someone right away where I want confirmation of my message and the priority of the message is high... and call me old fashioned if you wish... I use the phone.
The best thing about phone calls is that you get the message across, and you know the recipient receives the message if you are there talking to them face to face.
Even though you might not get the response you need right away, you usually come away with getting a commitment to the response right away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743569</id>
	<title>still hoping for a rebirth</title>
	<author>dalewj</author>
	<datestamp>1255530000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a ccmail consultant i'm still hoping!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a ccmail consultant i 'm still hoping !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a ccmail consultant i'm still hoping!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744451</id>
	<title>just one problem..</title>
	<author>binaryseraph</author>
	<datestamp>1255533960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Aside from the attachment issue- Twitter, SMS and Facebook all have character limits. Email can go on for DAYS (No really, how many times have you gotten some letter forwarded to half the planet that you spend 30 min reading "LoL' and "OMG" till you finally see the photo of a donkey wearing a rain coat)?
but seriously folks- yes perhaps the day to day emails over fairly trivial stuff will decline- but I know for my company i answer nearly 100 emails a day, with no sign of it stopping. In fact, its up 25\% from last year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aside from the attachment issue- Twitter , SMS and Facebook all have character limits .
Email can go on for DAYS ( No really , how many times have you gotten some letter forwarded to half the planet that you spend 30 min reading " LoL ' and " OMG " till you finally see the photo of a donkey wearing a rain coat ) ?
but seriously folks- yes perhaps the day to day emails over fairly trivial stuff will decline- but I know for my company i answer nearly 100 emails a day , with no sign of it stopping .
In fact , its up 25 \ % from last year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aside from the attachment issue- Twitter, SMS and Facebook all have character limits.
Email can go on for DAYS (No really, how many times have you gotten some letter forwarded to half the planet that you spend 30 min reading "LoL' and "OMG" till you finally see the photo of a donkey wearing a rain coat)?
but seriously folks- yes perhaps the day to day emails over fairly trivial stuff will decline- but I know for my company i answer nearly 100 emails a day, with no sign of it stopping.
In fact, its up 25\% from last year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743167</id>
	<title>google wave? come on now...</title>
	<author>pha7boy</author>
	<datestamp>1255527240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>i find google wave rather annoying. maybe because too few of my friends are on it, maybe because it's a whole new way of "emailing." maybe because it's not meant as a communication tool but rather as a collaboration tool. Either way, I don't see it replacing email anytime soon. or ever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i find google wave rather annoying .
maybe because too few of my friends are on it , maybe because it 's a whole new way of " emailing .
" maybe because it 's not meant as a communication tool but rather as a collaboration tool .
Either way , I do n't see it replacing email anytime soon .
or ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i find google wave rather annoying.
maybe because too few of my friends are on it, maybe because it's a whole new way of "emailing.
" maybe because it's not meant as a communication tool but rather as a collaboration tool.
Either way, I don't see it replacing email anytime soon.
or ever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743383</id>
	<title>Time to Adopt the Spam Form for this:</title>
	<author>DarkHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1255528800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your post advocates a</p><p>( ) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante</p><p>approach to replacing email. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)</p><p>( ) Spammers can still use the service, so it has no benefit over email.<br>( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected<br>( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money<br>(X) It is defenseless against brute force attacks<br>( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it<br>(X) Users of email will not put up with it<br>(X) Microsoft will not put up with it<br>( ) The police will not put up with it<br>( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers<br>( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once<br>(X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers<br>( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists<br>(X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business</p><p>Specifically, your plan fails to account for</p><p>( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it<br>(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for messaging<br>( ) Open relays in foreign countries<br>( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses<br>( ) Asshats<br>(X) Jurisdictional problems<br>( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes<br>( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money<br>(X) Huge existing software investment in SMTP<br>(X) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack<br>( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email<br>( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes<br>( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches<br>( ) Extreme profitability of spam<br>(X) Joe jobs and/or identity theft<br>(X) Technically illiterate politicians<br>( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers<br>( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves<br>( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering<br>( ) Outlook</p><p>and the following philosophical objections may also apply:</p><p>(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical<br>( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable<br>( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation<br>( ) Blacklists suck<br>( ) Whitelists suck<br>( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored<br>( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud<br>( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks<br>( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually<br>( ) Sending email should be free<br>(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?<br>(X) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses<br>( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem<br>( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome<br>(X) I don't want the government reading my email<br>( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough</p><p>Furthermore, this is what I think about you:</p><p>( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.<br>(X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.<br>( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your<br>house down!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post advocates a ( ) technical ( ) legislative ( X ) market-based ( ) vigilanteapproach to replacing email .
Your idea will not work .
Here is why it wo n't work .
( One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea , and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed .
) ( ) Spammers can still use the service , so it has no benefit over email .
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( X ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we 'll be stuck with it ( X ) Users of email will not put up with it ( X ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( X ) Many email users can not afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers do n't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( X ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else 's career or businessSpecifically , your plan fails to account for ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( X ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for messaging ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( X ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( X ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( X ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( X ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( X ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlookand the following philosophical objections may also apply : ( X ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with , yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( X ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers ?
( X ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( X ) I do n't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enoughFurthermore , this is what I think about you : ( ) Sorry dude , but I do n't think it would work .
( X ) This is a stupid idea , and you 're a stupid person for suggesting it .
( ) Nice try , assh0le !
I 'm going to find out where you live and burn yourhouse down !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post advocates a( ) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilanteapproach to replacing email.
Your idea will not work.
Here is why it won't work.
(One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.
)( ) Spammers can still use the service, so it has no benefit over email.
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money(X) It is defenseless against brute force attacks( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it(X) Users of email will not put up with it(X) Microsoft will not put up with it( ) The police will not put up with it( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once(X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists(X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or businessSpecifically, your plan fails to account for( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for messaging( ) Open relays in foreign countries( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses( ) Asshats(X) Jurisdictional problems( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money(X) Huge existing software investment in SMTP(X) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches( ) Extreme profitability of spam(X) Joe jobs and/or identity theft(X) Technically illiterate politicians( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering( ) Outlookand the following philosophical objections may also apply:(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation( ) Blacklists suck( ) Whitelists suck( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually( ) Sending email should be free(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
(X) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome(X) I don't want the government reading my email( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enoughFurthermore, this is what I think about you:( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le!
I'm going to find out where you live and burn yourhouse down!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743465</id>
	<title>Re:The Right Tool for the Right Job</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1255529340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having to deal with everything I get via SMS/IM instead of email is pretty close to my idea of the lowest ring of hell. There is no way Dante could have ever dreamed up a torture so hideous and cruel.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having to deal with everything I get via SMS/IM instead of email is pretty close to my idea of the lowest ring of hell .
There is no way Dante could have ever dreamed up a torture so hideous and cruel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having to deal with everything I get via SMS/IM instead of email is pretty close to my idea of the lowest ring of hell.
There is no way Dante could have ever dreamed up a torture so hideous and cruel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744793</id>
	<title>Re:The Right Tool for the Right Job</title>
	<author>omb</author>
	<datestamp>1255535340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hear Hear, it is the modern ALWAYS ON airhead that never has time to think or output anything meaningful.<br><br>I like to check my e-mail when I want to take a break from what I am concentrating on, say with Coffee.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hear Hear , it is the modern ALWAYS ON airhead that never has time to think or output anything meaningful.I like to check my e-mail when I want to take a break from what I am concentrating on , say with Coffee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hear Hear, it is the modern ALWAYS ON airhead that never has time to think or output anything meaningful.I like to check my e-mail when I want to take a break from what I am concentrating on, say with Coffee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743931</id>
	<title>Never Have, Never Will</title>
	<author>SeeSp0tRun</author>
	<datestamp>1255531800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about those of us who do not, and will not, have facebook, myspace, twitter, or anything else of the sort?  When did society become so reliant on knowing everything about everyone they have ever seen on the street?  If I don't see you at least twice a week, do not consider us "friends," perhaps acquaintances at most.<br> <br>
As mentioned above, if you need to get ahold of me, call me.  If you don't have my number, you probably don't need to get ahold of me THAT badly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about those of us who do not , and will not , have facebook , myspace , twitter , or anything else of the sort ?
When did society become so reliant on knowing everything about everyone they have ever seen on the street ?
If I do n't see you at least twice a week , do not consider us " friends , " perhaps acquaintances at most .
As mentioned above , if you need to get ahold of me , call me .
If you do n't have my number , you probably do n't need to get ahold of me THAT badly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about those of us who do not, and will not, have facebook, myspace, twitter, or anything else of the sort?
When did society become so reliant on knowing everything about everyone they have ever seen on the street?
If I don't see you at least twice a week, do not consider us "friends," perhaps acquaintances at most.
As mentioned above, if you need to get ahold of me, call me.
If you don't have my number, you probably don't need to get ahold of me THAT badly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29749607</id>
	<title>Re:The Right Tool for the Right Job</title>
	<author>Sandcastle</author>
	<datestamp>1255513080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well said. Not only can you leave replying to later, but one of the most common time management tips for many managers and most executives is to only read/deal with email twice a day.</p><p>The constant interruptions make you feel busier / more involved and therefore more productive, but in reality nearly everyone whose value to a company is more than the bureaucratic equivalent of grinding, you're actually far less effective, which is the more important measure.</p><p>Cue the MBA bullshit bingo comments, but there's a lot of logic to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well said .
Not only can you leave replying to later , but one of the most common time management tips for many managers and most executives is to only read/deal with email twice a day.The constant interruptions make you feel busier / more involved and therefore more productive , but in reality nearly everyone whose value to a company is more than the bureaucratic equivalent of grinding , you 're actually far less effective , which is the more important measure.Cue the MBA bullshit bingo comments , but there 's a lot of logic to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well said.
Not only can you leave replying to later, but one of the most common time management tips for many managers and most executives is to only read/deal with email twice a day.The constant interruptions make you feel busier / more involved and therefore more productive, but in reality nearly everyone whose value to a company is more than the bureaucratic equivalent of grinding, you're actually far less effective, which is the more important measure.Cue the MBA bullshit bingo comments, but there's a lot of logic to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743679</id>
	<title>The "Haves" can't contemplate life without</title>
	<author>ChronoFish</author>
	<datestamp>1255530600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you live in a rich-media world - iPhone for example - where you never have "just text" you can't contemplate a world where "just text" will do.</p><p>There are several incarnations of this.  Mac vs DOS, Windows vs Linux, GUI vs Command line, and now "Wave" vs eMail.</p><p>Those who use "just text" know it will work anywhere.  Those who are immerse in rich-media will push the envelope of user experience.</p><p>Is one better than the other? I don't think so.  Will one prevail over the other? Doubtful. Will you use Google Wave or some other social networking - most probable - if only to have a look.  Should you get rid of your POP/IMAP/SMTP servers?  I wouldn't (and wont').</p><p>-CF</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you live in a rich-media world - iPhone for example - where you never have " just text " you ca n't contemplate a world where " just text " will do.There are several incarnations of this .
Mac vs DOS , Windows vs Linux , GUI vs Command line , and now " Wave " vs eMail.Those who use " just text " know it will work anywhere .
Those who are immerse in rich-media will push the envelope of user experience.Is one better than the other ?
I do n't think so .
Will one prevail over the other ?
Doubtful. Will you use Google Wave or some other social networking - most probable - if only to have a look .
Should you get rid of your POP/IMAP/SMTP servers ?
I would n't ( and wont ' ) .-CF</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you live in a rich-media world - iPhone for example - where you never have "just text" you can't contemplate a world where "just text" will do.There are several incarnations of this.
Mac vs DOS, Windows vs Linux, GUI vs Command line, and now "Wave" vs eMail.Those who use "just text" know it will work anywhere.
Those who are immerse in rich-media will push the envelope of user experience.Is one better than the other?
I don't think so.
Will one prevail over the other?
Doubtful. Will you use Google Wave or some other social networking - most probable - if only to have a look.
Should you get rid of your POP/IMAP/SMTP servers?
I wouldn't (and wont').-CF</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743209</id>
	<title>silly</title>
	<author>Frogg</author>
	<datestamp>1255527600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i'll put my hands up and say i've not read the article - and i'll certainly not be wasting my time doing so.</p><p>but is anyone really so stupid to think that email (which is based upon open standards and is already running on hundreds of thousands of servers and comes installed by default on most servers) will ever be replaced by fecebook and twatter???</p><p>a few years ago i guess the same idiots would also be including myspaz on that list too? (and what is next years fad?)</p><p>email dying? pffffft - what a bunch of idiots (can't they see that?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i 'll put my hands up and say i 've not read the article - and i 'll certainly not be wasting my time doing so.but is anyone really so stupid to think that email ( which is based upon open standards and is already running on hundreds of thousands of servers and comes installed by default on most servers ) will ever be replaced by fecebook and twatter ? ?
? a few years ago i guess the same idiots would also be including myspaz on that list too ?
( and what is next years fad ?
) email dying ?
pffffft - what a bunch of idiots ( ca n't they see that ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i'll put my hands up and say i've not read the article - and i'll certainly not be wasting my time doing so.but is anyone really so stupid to think that email (which is based upon open standards and is already running on hundreds of thousands of servers and comes installed by default on most servers) will ever be replaced by fecebook and twatter??
?a few years ago i guess the same idiots would also be including myspaz on that list too?
(and what is next years fad?
)email dying?
pffffft - what a bunch of idiots (can't they see that?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29767105</id>
	<title>Re:The trouble with...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255695480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Much to my surprise, I have started using twitter. I follow about a dozen people who post interesting links occasionally. The thing about it is it is ubiquitous. I follow some related groups on a number of social networking sites, and twitter seems the easiest way to quickly post an interesting url to all of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Much to my surprise , I have started using twitter .
I follow about a dozen people who post interesting links occasionally .
The thing about it is it is ubiquitous .
I follow some related groups on a number of social networking sites , and twitter seems the easiest way to quickly post an interesting url to all of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much to my surprise, I have started using twitter.
I follow about a dozen people who post interesting links occasionally.
The thing about it is it is ubiquitous.
I follow some related groups on a number of social networking sites, and twitter seems the easiest way to quickly post an interesting url to all of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743197</id>
	<title>Another overlooked e-mail strength</title>
	<author>hotdiggity</author>
	<datestamp>1255527540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article doesn't mention a major advantage of "legacy" e-mail - it's a standard that isn't tied to any particular company. <p>

Facebook, Google, Twitter, whatever, are "single-source vendors" of their particular products, and  they can be subject to any kind of financial, moral, political, or technological problems. </p><p>

E-mail has no such dependencies. The only way to take it down is to take down the Internet in general. (Spam overloading aside.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article does n't mention a major advantage of " legacy " e-mail - it 's a standard that is n't tied to any particular company .
Facebook , Google , Twitter , whatever , are " single-source vendors " of their particular products , and they can be subject to any kind of financial , moral , political , or technological problems .
E-mail has no such dependencies .
The only way to take it down is to take down the Internet in general .
( Spam overloading aside .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article doesn't mention a major advantage of "legacy" e-mail - it's a standard that isn't tied to any particular company.
Facebook, Google, Twitter, whatever, are "single-source vendors" of their particular products, and  they can be subject to any kind of financial, moral, political, or technological problems.
E-mail has no such dependencies.
The only way to take it down is to take down the Internet in general.
(Spam overloading aside.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744051</id>
	<title>You just don't remove email</title>
	<author>amn108</author>
	<datestamp>1255532340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Email will be with us a long long time from now. Not to say it will not expire, it eventually will, just not in near future. Society is structured as a pyramid of services, where services covering more use are layered on the bottom, supporting and being used by higher levels of services. Humans rely on several such base services - acquiring food, necessary common wealth, relationships &amp; communicating, which are provided/made convenient by higher level services - snail mail (post offices), useful clothing etc. Email is another level on top of the level of computing - a basic human need to offload energy use to machines - a very basic abstraction of communication system, also meaning that it is many levels below such services as Facebook and whatever else similiar. You do not remove base service if you have your sanity in behold, and before you can definitely replace it with something equally powerful. Email is so simple and so basic it covers a lot of ground. This is the bottomline. Those who claim it will be replaced better have something equally simple and powerful or they simply have no idea how the world works, which is a whole different problem in itself - the kind of problem that makes you read more books, eat healthier and sometimes subscribe to therapy sessions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Email will be with us a long long time from now .
Not to say it will not expire , it eventually will , just not in near future .
Society is structured as a pyramid of services , where services covering more use are layered on the bottom , supporting and being used by higher levels of services .
Humans rely on several such base services - acquiring food , necessary common wealth , relationships &amp; communicating , which are provided/made convenient by higher level services - snail mail ( post offices ) , useful clothing etc .
Email is another level on top of the level of computing - a basic human need to offload energy use to machines - a very basic abstraction of communication system , also meaning that it is many levels below such services as Facebook and whatever else similiar .
You do not remove base service if you have your sanity in behold , and before you can definitely replace it with something equally powerful .
Email is so simple and so basic it covers a lot of ground .
This is the bottomline .
Those who claim it will be replaced better have something equally simple and powerful or they simply have no idea how the world works , which is a whole different problem in itself - the kind of problem that makes you read more books , eat healthier and sometimes subscribe to therapy sessions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Email will be with us a long long time from now.
Not to say it will not expire, it eventually will, just not in near future.
Society is structured as a pyramid of services, where services covering more use are layered on the bottom, supporting and being used by higher levels of services.
Humans rely on several such base services - acquiring food, necessary common wealth, relationships &amp; communicating, which are provided/made convenient by higher level services - snail mail (post offices), useful clothing etc.
Email is another level on top of the level of computing - a basic human need to offload energy use to machines - a very basic abstraction of communication system, also meaning that it is many levels below such services as Facebook and whatever else similiar.
You do not remove base service if you have your sanity in behold, and before you can definitely replace it with something equally powerful.
Email is so simple and so basic it covers a lot of ground.
This is the bottomline.
Those who claim it will be replaced better have something equally simple and powerful or they simply have no idea how the world works, which is a whole different problem in itself - the kind of problem that makes you read more books, eat healthier and sometimes subscribe to therapy sessions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744663</id>
	<title>Re:Another overlooked e-mail strength</title>
	<author>LordLimecat</author>
	<datestamp>1255534920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is this different from Wave?  Google may have put together the standard, but anyone can create their own Wave server with 0 ties to google.  Its designed to be a replacement for SMTP in every way, including its non-reliance on a central authority.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this different from Wave ?
Google may have put together the standard , but anyone can create their own Wave server with 0 ties to google .
Its designed to be a replacement for SMTP in every way , including its non-reliance on a central authority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this different from Wave?
Google may have put together the standard, but anyone can create their own Wave server with 0 ties to google.
Its designed to be a replacement for SMTP in every way, including its non-reliance on a central authority.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29746163</id>
	<title>Re:You just don't remove email</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255540980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Not to say it will not expire, it eventually will</i></p><p>Why would we possibly need to replace such a fundamental, simple, ubiquitous service as email? Why would we want to? It's obviously the right tool for the job. Social networking services will not replace email, because they are another tool for another job.</p><p>I'm not talking about teeny-boppers playing with a smartphone during study hour. I'm talking about business. The correct tool for business is something that emulates the postal service, not something that emulates your mother-in-law popping in unexpected to spread the latest gossip.</p><p>Email will never "expire", any more than the paradigm of sending letters will expire. It's the paradigm that's important, not the technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to say it will not expire , it eventually willWhy would we possibly need to replace such a fundamental , simple , ubiquitous service as email ?
Why would we want to ?
It 's obviously the right tool for the job .
Social networking services will not replace email , because they are another tool for another job.I 'm not talking about teeny-boppers playing with a smartphone during study hour .
I 'm talking about business .
The correct tool for business is something that emulates the postal service , not something that emulates your mother-in-law popping in unexpected to spread the latest gossip.Email will never " expire " , any more than the paradigm of sending letters will expire .
It 's the paradigm that 's important , not the technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to say it will not expire, it eventually willWhy would we possibly need to replace such a fundamental, simple, ubiquitous service as email?
Why would we want to?
It's obviously the right tool for the job.
Social networking services will not replace email, because they are another tool for another job.I'm not talking about teeny-boppers playing with a smartphone during study hour.
I'm talking about business.
The correct tool for business is something that emulates the postal service, not something that emulates your mother-in-law popping in unexpected to spread the latest gossip.Email will never "expire", any more than the paradigm of sending letters will expire.
It's the paradigm that's important, not the technology.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743331</id>
	<title>Re:The Right Tool for the Right Job</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1255528500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....Always on?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... My mail is always on, and will notify of new mail instantly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Facebook and Twitter, I only log on once or twice a day,and get notified of important new items<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... *by email*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....Always on ?
... My mail is always on , and will notify of new mail instantly ... Facebook and Twitter , I only log on once or twice a day,and get notified of important new items ... * by email *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....Always on?
... My mail is always on, and will notify of new mail instantly ... Facebook and Twitter, I only log on once or twice a day,and get notified of important new items ... *by email*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743287</id>
	<title>Cloud computing: Fail!</title>
	<author>taobeastie</author>
	<datestamp>1255528200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally, I do not enjoy the prospect of cloud computing and not having the ability to download my emails for offline use. The area of the US where I live is known more for moonshine, not high speed internet access. So, here's my thought: Until we have a fully functional world wide web, where anyone can connect with anything from a cell phone, an ipod touch, a personal computer, or a television and use the www interactively for any purpose from absolutely any location, with ZERO downtime, we will not have the ability to scrap email or the hard disk drive. -Just a thought --TaoBeastie</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I do not enjoy the prospect of cloud computing and not having the ability to download my emails for offline use .
The area of the US where I live is known more for moonshine , not high speed internet access .
So , here 's my thought : Until we have a fully functional world wide web , where anyone can connect with anything from a cell phone , an ipod touch , a personal computer , or a television and use the www interactively for any purpose from absolutely any location , with ZERO downtime , we will not have the ability to scrap email or the hard disk drive .
-Just a thought --TaoBeastie</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I do not enjoy the prospect of cloud computing and not having the ability to download my emails for offline use.
The area of the US where I live is known more for moonshine, not high speed internet access.
So, here's my thought: Until we have a fully functional world wide web, where anyone can connect with anything from a cell phone, an ipod touch, a personal computer, or a television and use the www interactively for any purpose from absolutely any location, with ZERO downtime, we will not have the ability to scrap email or the hard disk drive.
-Just a thought --TaoBeastie</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29756559</id>
	<title>ResoMail</title>
	<author>JSlope</author>
	<datestamp>1255618320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Current e-mail is a joke, <a href="http://resomail.com/" title="resomail.com" rel="nofollow">ResoMail</a> [resomail.com] in short time will replace current e-mail<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Current e-mail is a joke , ResoMail [ resomail.com ] in short time will replace current e-mail : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Current e-mail is a joke, ResoMail [resomail.com] in short time will replace current e-mail :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29746273</id>
	<title>Yeah, right... and PHP killed HTML</title>
	<author>foxtyke</author>
	<datestamp>1255541400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What gets me is that these people who say Y will lead to the death of X never seem to understand one little fact.</p><p>X will have more reliance and people using it, more experience than Y and have established purposes as well as a mature development base.</p><p>If Y fully replaces the functionality of X and improves it vastly, sure it can happen, for example, WWW vs. Gopher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What gets me is that these people who say Y will lead to the death of X never seem to understand one little fact.X will have more reliance and people using it , more experience than Y and have established purposes as well as a mature development base.If Y fully replaces the functionality of X and improves it vastly , sure it can happen , for example , WWW vs. Gopher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What gets me is that these people who say Y will lead to the death of X never seem to understand one little fact.X will have more reliance and people using it, more experience than Y and have established purposes as well as a mature development base.If Y fully replaces the functionality of X and improves it vastly, sure it can happen, for example, WWW vs. Gopher.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744743</id>
	<title>Re:more social networker users than email users?</title>
	<author>lavardo</author>
	<datestamp>1255535160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i totally agree with you.  those numbers do not make sense whatsoever.  they are probably calling too many old folks with hearing aids saying - "hi, this is a survey.  Do you have an email account?  Do you have a facebook account?"  responses, "Yes, I do have a mailbox and I do have books."</htmltext>
<tokenext>i totally agree with you .
those numbers do not make sense whatsoever .
they are probably calling too many old folks with hearing aids saying - " hi , this is a survey .
Do you have an email account ?
Do you have a facebook account ?
" responses , " Yes , I do have a mailbox and I do have books .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i totally agree with you.
those numbers do not make sense whatsoever.
they are probably calling too many old folks with hearing aids saying - "hi, this is a survey.
Do you have an email account?
Do you have a facebook account?
"  responses, "Yes, I do have a mailbox and I do have books.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29755257</id>
	<title>Re:The Right Tool for the Right Job</title>
	<author>whipnet</author>
	<datestamp>1255610040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This summed up my reply exactly.  Thanks for typing all of that so I didn't have to.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>This summed up my reply exactly .
Thanks for typing all of that so I did n't have to .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This summed up my reply exactly.
Thanks for typing all of that so I didn't have to.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744935</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps</title>
	<author>foniksonik</author>
	<datestamp>1255535940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Despite the sibling posts here threading is not the answer though it's half way there... email is personal while facebook is communal. It's a paradigm shift that is as much psychological as it is technological. Jumping between those spaces is awkward within one context, ie an email client.</p><p>Facebook is like having multiple conversations with different people at your local coffee shop or pub - it's okay to ignore a thread for a while or forever and nobody feels put out and you can address the group as an entity rather than individuals.</p><p>Email is like a conference call if you do threading... everyone expects to be answered and feel the need to address you directly and do feel put out if you don't reply.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite the sibling posts here threading is not the answer though it 's half way there... email is personal while facebook is communal .
It 's a paradigm shift that is as much psychological as it is technological .
Jumping between those spaces is awkward within one context , ie an email client.Facebook is like having multiple conversations with different people at your local coffee shop or pub - it 's okay to ignore a thread for a while or forever and nobody feels put out and you can address the group as an entity rather than individuals.Email is like a conference call if you do threading... everyone expects to be answered and feel the need to address you directly and do feel put out if you do n't reply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite the sibling posts here threading is not the answer though it's half way there... email is personal while facebook is communal.
It's a paradigm shift that is as much psychological as it is technological.
Jumping between those spaces is awkward within one context, ie an email client.Facebook is like having multiple conversations with different people at your local coffee shop or pub - it's okay to ignore a thread for a while or forever and nobody feels put out and you can address the group as an entity rather than individuals.Email is like a conference call if you do threading... everyone expects to be answered and feel the need to address you directly and do feel put out if you don't reply.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745233</id>
	<title>Facebook would be more useful...</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1255537200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... if it weren't for all the damn stupid plugins. I'm on it, and appreciate finding out what's going on with friends and acquaintances in far-flung parts of the country. I don't appreciate logging into it and seeing dozens of entries about various people's status in Mafia Wars, Farmville, etc, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... if it were n't for all the damn stupid plugins .
I 'm on it , and appreciate finding out what 's going on with friends and acquaintances in far-flung parts of the country .
I do n't appreciate logging into it and seeing dozens of entries about various people 's status in Mafia Wars , Farmville , etc , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... if it weren't for all the damn stupid plugins.
I'm on it, and appreciate finding out what's going on with friends and acquaintances in far-flung parts of the country.
I don't appreciate logging into it and seeing dozens of entries about various people's status in Mafia Wars, Farmville, etc, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744867</id>
	<title>Re:Good. Now leave me alone.</title>
	<author>sineltor</author>
	<datestamp>1255535640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Email isn't going anywhere.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  <b>Everyone</b> has an email account.</p></div><p>Sure; and everyone has a serial port, floppy disks and CRT monitors.</p><p>For anything to replace email, it will need to be decentralised. No company will trust facebook, twitter, google or anybody else with their private corporate data. It will also need to be obviously superior to email in almost every way. It needs to add features that people want.</p><p>The only serious contender for replacing email is Wave. I've been using it for the past 2-3 days and even as a beta I'm already preferring it over email. I'm honestly wishing everyone I need to talk to had a wave account already. Email will be around for at least 15 years. But I don't think it'll be around forever.</p><p>I could be wrong, but it would be prudent not to dismiss wave out of hand just yet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Email is n't going anywhere .
... Everyone has an email account.Sure ; and everyone has a serial port , floppy disks and CRT monitors.For anything to replace email , it will need to be decentralised .
No company will trust facebook , twitter , google or anybody else with their private corporate data .
It will also need to be obviously superior to email in almost every way .
It needs to add features that people want.The only serious contender for replacing email is Wave .
I 've been using it for the past 2-3 days and even as a beta I 'm already preferring it over email .
I 'm honestly wishing everyone I need to talk to had a wave account already .
Email will be around for at least 15 years .
But I do n't think it 'll be around forever.I could be wrong , but it would be prudent not to dismiss wave out of hand just yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Email isn't going anywhere.
...  Everyone has an email account.Sure; and everyone has a serial port, floppy disks and CRT monitors.For anything to replace email, it will need to be decentralised.
No company will trust facebook, twitter, google or anybody else with their private corporate data.
It will also need to be obviously superior to email in almost every way.
It needs to add features that people want.The only serious contender for replacing email is Wave.
I've been using it for the past 2-3 days and even as a beta I'm already preferring it over email.
I'm honestly wishing everyone I need to talk to had a wave account already.
Email will be around for at least 15 years.
But I don't think it'll be around forever.I could be wrong, but it would be prudent not to dismiss wave out of hand just yet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29750469</id>
	<title>Re:The Right Tool for the Right Job</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255517220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wave can be synchronous or asynchronous (there's no persistent connection needed, it's a remote object, you can respond immediately, or you can postpone your response -- it all depends on the users). It's not necessarily broadcasting (maybe "narrowcasting"), although I suppose if you wanted a wave to be broadcast that could be arranged.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wave can be synchronous or asynchronous ( there 's no persistent connection needed , it 's a remote object , you can respond immediately , or you can postpone your response -- it all depends on the users ) .
It 's not necessarily broadcasting ( maybe " narrowcasting " ) , although I suppose if you wanted a wave to be broadcast that could be arranged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wave can be synchronous or asynchronous (there's no persistent connection needed, it's a remote object, you can respond immediately, or you can postpone your response -- it all depends on the users).
It's not necessarily broadcasting (maybe "narrowcasting"), although I suppose if you wanted a wave to be broadcast that could be arranged.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743307</id>
	<title>Just Like the Internet Dying in 2010</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1255528380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In related news, <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/the-internet-is-about-to-die-literally-die.ars" title="arstechnica.com">Nemertes President Johna Till Johnson is still convinced that the internet will meet its end</a> [arstechnica.com] by 2010.  Back in 2007 they claimed that the "exponential" growth in demand for bandwidth will butt up against the "linear" investment in networking technology causing brownouts and no internet by 2010.  And as recently as May of 2009, they have been still saying this!  Then in October 1st the same company claimed that Net Neutrality will end the internet (or at least as we know it).  Which causes me to wonder<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... what kind of business model is Nemertes running?  Do they stand to profit from this FUD or establish themselves as expert prophets if one of these things happens?  <br> <br>

Really, the biggest question is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... why would the WSJ throw their journalistic integrity on the line for this kind of news?  What did they gain at the risk of look like Popular Mechanics who in 1951 speculated we would all <a href="http://www.its.berkeley.edu/itsreview/ITSReviewonline/spring2003/historypanel.html" title="berkeley.edu">have personal helicopters in our garage</a> [berkeley.edu]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>In related news , Nemertes President Johna Till Johnson is still convinced that the internet will meet its end [ arstechnica.com ] by 2010 .
Back in 2007 they claimed that the " exponential " growth in demand for bandwidth will butt up against the " linear " investment in networking technology causing brownouts and no internet by 2010 .
And as recently as May of 2009 , they have been still saying this !
Then in October 1st the same company claimed that Net Neutrality will end the internet ( or at least as we know it ) .
Which causes me to wonder ... what kind of business model is Nemertes running ?
Do they stand to profit from this FUD or establish themselves as expert prophets if one of these things happens ?
Really , the biggest question is ... why would the WSJ throw their journalistic integrity on the line for this kind of news ?
What did they gain at the risk of look like Popular Mechanics who in 1951 speculated we would all have personal helicopters in our garage [ berkeley.edu ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In related news, Nemertes President Johna Till Johnson is still convinced that the internet will meet its end [arstechnica.com] by 2010.
Back in 2007 they claimed that the "exponential" growth in demand for bandwidth will butt up against the "linear" investment in networking technology causing brownouts and no internet by 2010.
And as recently as May of 2009, they have been still saying this!
Then in October 1st the same company claimed that Net Neutrality will end the internet (or at least as we know it).
Which causes me to wonder ... what kind of business model is Nemertes running?
Do they stand to profit from this FUD or establish themselves as expert prophets if one of these things happens?
Really, the biggest question is ... why would the WSJ throw their journalistic integrity on the line for this kind of news?
What did they gain at the risk of look like Popular Mechanics who in 1951 speculated we would all have personal helicopters in our garage [berkeley.edu]?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745439</id>
	<title>Re:Email is dead</title>
	<author>Pike</author>
	<datestamp>1255537980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Because it doesn't require my instantaneous attention and I get to control when I reply.</i></p><p>Neither does Twitter. Nor will Google Wave.</p><p>The problem with email isn't its asynchronous nature and that's not what's being declared dead here. Everyone loves that part. The problem is how its oversimplified inbox/outbox/folder/reply-to-all format overcomplicates multi-person and multi-project conversations. Gmail made a lot of progress by ditching folders in favour of labels and powerful search, but the basic problems still remain. Google was right, a brand new open protocol is needed that doesn't try to remain compatible with IMAP, POP and SMTP.</p><p>Twitter, on the other hand, is an awesome option for stuff on the other end of the scale - very quick casual questions or comments. Because it removes the social overhead of initiating email contact -- makes it more like just a comment to someone on the street. Twitter makes it easy to make contact and interact with both friends and strangers on a very light level. I've asked questions of people on Twitter that I never would have if email was my only option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it does n't require my instantaneous attention and I get to control when I reply.Neither does Twitter .
Nor will Google Wave.The problem with email is n't its asynchronous nature and that 's not what 's being declared dead here .
Everyone loves that part .
The problem is how its oversimplified inbox/outbox/folder/reply-to-all format overcomplicates multi-person and multi-project conversations .
Gmail made a lot of progress by ditching folders in favour of labels and powerful search , but the basic problems still remain .
Google was right , a brand new open protocol is needed that does n't try to remain compatible with IMAP , POP and SMTP.Twitter , on the other hand , is an awesome option for stuff on the other end of the scale - very quick casual questions or comments .
Because it removes the social overhead of initiating email contact -- makes it more like just a comment to someone on the street .
Twitter makes it easy to make contact and interact with both friends and strangers on a very light level .
I 've asked questions of people on Twitter that I never would have if email was my only option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it doesn't require my instantaneous attention and I get to control when I reply.Neither does Twitter.
Nor will Google Wave.The problem with email isn't its asynchronous nature and that's not what's being declared dead here.
Everyone loves that part.
The problem is how its oversimplified inbox/outbox/folder/reply-to-all format overcomplicates multi-person and multi-project conversations.
Gmail made a lot of progress by ditching folders in favour of labels and powerful search, but the basic problems still remain.
Google was right, a brand new open protocol is needed that doesn't try to remain compatible with IMAP, POP and SMTP.Twitter, on the other hand, is an awesome option for stuff on the other end of the scale - very quick casual questions or comments.
Because it removes the social overhead of initiating email contact -- makes it more like just a comment to someone on the street.
Twitter makes it easy to make contact and interact with both friends and strangers on a very light level.
I've asked questions of people on Twitter that I never would have if email was my only option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29751247</id>
	<title>Re:The Right Tool for the Right Job</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255522140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google Wave switches dynamically between synchronous conversation, asynchronous mail and broadcasting depending on participants' needs. That's why so many people are excited about it..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Wave switches dynamically between synchronous conversation , asynchronous mail and broadcasting depending on participants ' needs .
That 's why so many people are excited about it. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Wave switches dynamically between synchronous conversation, asynchronous mail and broadcasting depending on participants' needs.
That's why so many people are excited about it..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29751697</id>
	<title>Popular Mechanics</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1255526040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What did they gain at the risk of look like Popular Mechanics who in 1951 speculated we would all have personal helicopters in our garage?</i></p><p>Reading this made me think of an article in a 1938 issue of "Popular Mechanics".  The title called hemp the "New Billion Dollar Crop".  Looking for a reference to it I found one on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Hemp/40845936177?v=feed&amp;story\_fbid=127030648731" title="facebook.com">Facebook</a> [facebook.com].</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What did they gain at the risk of look like Popular Mechanics who in 1951 speculated we would all have personal helicopters in our garage ? Reading this made me think of an article in a 1938 issue of " Popular Mechanics " .
The title called hemp the " New Billion Dollar Crop " .
Looking for a reference to it I found one on Facebook [ facebook.com ] .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What did they gain at the risk of look like Popular Mechanics who in 1951 speculated we would all have personal helicopters in our garage?Reading this made me think of an article in a 1938 issue of "Popular Mechanics".
The title called hemp the "New Billion Dollar Crop".
Looking for a reference to it I found one on Facebook [facebook.com].
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745603</id>
	<title>I'd better tell corporate HQ right away...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255538640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give me a break.  The Wall Street Journey (into forever fantasy) can't predict d**k (tm).  Here's my prediction:  The WSJ will continue to run crap stories without editorial trash canning today, tomorrow, and the day after that, and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  Can we PLEASE get the editors to do their jobs?  On second thought, I need the extra paper to wipe my a**.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give me a break .
The Wall Street Journey ( into forever fantasy ) ca n't predict d * * k ( tm ) .
Here 's my prediction : The WSJ will continue to run crap stories without editorial trash canning today , tomorrow , and the day after that , and ... Can we PLEASE get the editors to do their jobs ?
On second thought , I need the extra paper to wipe my a * * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give me a break.
The Wall Street Journey (into forever fantasy) can't predict d**k (tm).
Here's my prediction:  The WSJ will continue to run crap stories without editorial trash canning today, tomorrow, and the day after that, and ...  Can we PLEASE get the editors to do their jobs?
On second thought, I need the extra paper to wipe my a**.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745091</id>
	<title>Re:Actually</title>
	<author>lavardo</author>
	<datestamp>1255536600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>they'll be looking through your emails...  "wow, my grandfather really was rounding up that wh0re in China. hey Jason, come look at all these attachments!!!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>they 'll be looking through your emails... " wow , my grandfather really was rounding up that wh0re in China .
hey Jason , come look at all these attachments ! ! !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they'll be looking through your emails...  "wow, my grandfather really was rounding up that wh0re in China.
hey Jason, come look at all these attachments!!!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29751599</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1255525380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We should not get rid of E-mail so much as improve it. E-mail could be easily improved by adding ideas such as threading which would quite easily overcome the complicated mess that is quoting.</i></p><p>I much prefer quoting what I'm replying to messages, as I did above, it keeps messages shorter and easier to read.  This is especially true when you've got replies to replies, to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should not get rid of E-mail so much as improve it .
E-mail could be easily improved by adding ideas such as threading which would quite easily overcome the complicated mess that is quoting.I much prefer quoting what I 'm replying to messages , as I did above , it keeps messages shorter and easier to read .
This is especially true when you 've got replies to replies , to .. . Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should not get rid of E-mail so much as improve it.
E-mail could be easily improved by adding ideas such as threading which would quite easily overcome the complicated mess that is quoting.I much prefer quoting what I'm replying to messages, as I did above, it keeps messages shorter and easier to read.
This is especially true when you've got replies to replies, to ...

Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29750169</id>
	<title>Re:Email is dead</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1255515660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Because it doesn't require my instantaneous attention and I get to control when I reply.</i></p><p>The same is also true for Wave, which is why the constant wave of anti-Wave articles are nothing but complete bullshit from ignorant masses of end users who got excited about a developer's technology and release, which in turn underscores the authors have no clue what the hell Wave is in the first place. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, no one at Google has claimed Wave is the death of email which further underscores how much anti-Google fanaticism is behind these types of absolute bullshit articles. It is true, however, Wave is capable of both usurping and even co-existing with email as we know it today, in many, many capacities. It is a competing technology.</p><p>Furthermore, Wave's big claim to fame is improved collaboration. From the demos, its rather obvious it does, in fact, deliver. Anyone who has ever attempted to use email as a collaboration tool will absolutely stand up and tell you it sucks badly for serious collaboration. Wave hopes to address this while at the same time either usurping email in this capacity or extending the capabilities of email as a collaborative end product.</p><p>This means Wave is poised to address collaboration and email remains a simple tool for communication; where its even possible to make wave part of such email communication or the end work product of a wave as the email communication. Or, its also possible to use Wave as an email replacement altogether.</p><p>This constant stream of anti-Wave articles where its clear the author doesn't have even the basic understanding of what the heck Wave is, instantly qualifies one as a douche bag of the year candidate. I can't stress it enough...wave is a protocol not an application. Wait at least six months to see what form applications may take which truly showcase Wave's collaborate capabilities. In other words, now that its in the hands of developers, lets see what developers can make with it. Development takes time. Lets see what's out there in six months to two years. Declaring a tool dead before it can even be used is the height of ignorance and stupidity.</p><p>The fact Wave can be used as SMTP+IRC+IM pretty well supports Wave is a very powerful and enabling technology. The real wow factor is going to come when federations of Wave servers are running various services and they all magically work together, including you or your own private server. Unless someone can attack and invalidate the technology base, people only come off sounding like ignorant idiots with a anti-Google ax to grind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it does n't require my instantaneous attention and I get to control when I reply.The same is also true for Wave , which is why the constant wave of anti-Wave articles are nothing but complete bullshit from ignorant masses of end users who got excited about a developer 's technology and release , which in turn underscores the authors have no clue what the hell Wave is in the first place .
Furthermore , to the best of my knowledge , no one at Google has claimed Wave is the death of email which further underscores how much anti-Google fanaticism is behind these types of absolute bullshit articles .
It is true , however , Wave is capable of both usurping and even co-existing with email as we know it today , in many , many capacities .
It is a competing technology.Furthermore , Wave 's big claim to fame is improved collaboration .
From the demos , its rather obvious it does , in fact , deliver .
Anyone who has ever attempted to use email as a collaboration tool will absolutely stand up and tell you it sucks badly for serious collaboration .
Wave hopes to address this while at the same time either usurping email in this capacity or extending the capabilities of email as a collaborative end product.This means Wave is poised to address collaboration and email remains a simple tool for communication ; where its even possible to make wave part of such email communication or the end work product of a wave as the email communication .
Or , its also possible to use Wave as an email replacement altogether.This constant stream of anti-Wave articles where its clear the author does n't have even the basic understanding of what the heck Wave is , instantly qualifies one as a douche bag of the year candidate .
I ca n't stress it enough...wave is a protocol not an application .
Wait at least six months to see what form applications may take which truly showcase Wave 's collaborate capabilities .
In other words , now that its in the hands of developers , lets see what developers can make with it .
Development takes time .
Lets see what 's out there in six months to two years .
Declaring a tool dead before it can even be used is the height of ignorance and stupidity.The fact Wave can be used as SMTP + IRC + IM pretty well supports Wave is a very powerful and enabling technology .
The real wow factor is going to come when federations of Wave servers are running various services and they all magically work together , including you or your own private server .
Unless someone can attack and invalidate the technology base , people only come off sounding like ignorant idiots with a anti-Google ax to grind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it doesn't require my instantaneous attention and I get to control when I reply.The same is also true for Wave, which is why the constant wave of anti-Wave articles are nothing but complete bullshit from ignorant masses of end users who got excited about a developer's technology and release, which in turn underscores the authors have no clue what the hell Wave is in the first place.
Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, no one at Google has claimed Wave is the death of email which further underscores how much anti-Google fanaticism is behind these types of absolute bullshit articles.
It is true, however, Wave is capable of both usurping and even co-existing with email as we know it today, in many, many capacities.
It is a competing technology.Furthermore, Wave's big claim to fame is improved collaboration.
From the demos, its rather obvious it does, in fact, deliver.
Anyone who has ever attempted to use email as a collaboration tool will absolutely stand up and tell you it sucks badly for serious collaboration.
Wave hopes to address this while at the same time either usurping email in this capacity or extending the capabilities of email as a collaborative end product.This means Wave is poised to address collaboration and email remains a simple tool for communication; where its even possible to make wave part of such email communication or the end work product of a wave as the email communication.
Or, its also possible to use Wave as an email replacement altogether.This constant stream of anti-Wave articles where its clear the author doesn't have even the basic understanding of what the heck Wave is, instantly qualifies one as a douche bag of the year candidate.
I can't stress it enough...wave is a protocol not an application.
Wait at least six months to see what form applications may take which truly showcase Wave's collaborate capabilities.
In other words, now that its in the hands of developers, lets see what developers can make with it.
Development takes time.
Lets see what's out there in six months to two years.
Declaring a tool dead before it can even be used is the height of ignorance and stupidity.The fact Wave can be used as SMTP+IRC+IM pretty well supports Wave is a very powerful and enabling technology.
The real wow factor is going to come when federations of Wave servers are running various services and they all magically work together, including you or your own private server.
Unless someone can attack and invalidate the technology base, people only come off sounding like ignorant idiots with a anti-Google ax to grind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745261</id>
	<title>Re:Good. Now leave me alone.</title>
	<author>ukyoCE</author>
	<datestamp>1255537260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The one really good thing about Facebook is it's a much much better Address Book than anything else out there, and they've built forums, messaging, invites, picture sharing, etc. on top of it.  It's a very enticing way of improving privacy on the web, since you can actually authenticate+limit who sees the content very easily.  The lack of spam is a nice side effect too.</p><p>The huge downside is that it's still a closed system.  You can't make your own awesome video game and use Facebook for the authentication, unless you build it within Facebook's closed proprietary system with their tools.</p><p>It's too bad an open authentication system hasn't really taken off yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The one really good thing about Facebook is it 's a much much better Address Book than anything else out there , and they 've built forums , messaging , invites , picture sharing , etc .
on top of it .
It 's a very enticing way of improving privacy on the web , since you can actually authenticate + limit who sees the content very easily .
The lack of spam is a nice side effect too.The huge downside is that it 's still a closed system .
You ca n't make your own awesome video game and use Facebook for the authentication , unless you build it within Facebook 's closed proprietary system with their tools.It 's too bad an open authentication system has n't really taken off yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one really good thing about Facebook is it's a much much better Address Book than anything else out there, and they've built forums, messaging, invites, picture sharing, etc.
on top of it.
It's a very enticing way of improving privacy on the web, since you can actually authenticate+limit who sees the content very easily.
The lack of spam is a nice side effect too.The huge downside is that it's still a closed system.
You can't make your own awesome video game and use Facebook for the authentication, unless you build it within Facebook's closed proprietary system with their tools.It's too bad an open authentication system hasn't really taken off yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743187</id>
	<title>The trouble with...</title>
	<author>Malc</author>
	<datestamp>1255527480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... things like Facebook and Google Wave is that surely not everybody subscribes to them.  I certainly don't want a million different accounts, and nor will bother with Google Wave.  Everybody has email though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... things like Facebook and Google Wave is that surely not everybody subscribes to them .
I certainly do n't want a million different accounts , and nor will bother with Google Wave .
Everybody has email though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... things like Facebook and Google Wave is that surely not everybody subscribes to them.
I certainly don't want a million different accounts, and nor will bother with Google Wave.
Everybody has email though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745681</id>
	<title>Re:The Right Tool for the Right Job</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1255539000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>nor do you want to always be responding to some questions that take away your time and concentration.</p></div><p>I think that's an important point. I think that the people who make these pronouncements tend to work in jobs that don't require complex analysis but are focussed on snap responses to situations. The RA was from the Wall Street Journal, and I agree that email is probably not the best means of tactical communication on a trading floor. The trouble comes when people who work in that way assume that <em>everybody</em> works in that way. I once worked for an employer who decided that our workplace should be designed to maximise distraction and interruption because that would be "vibrant" and "creative". It might have been, but it was absolutely terrible for making sure that a system that could kill hundreds of people was safely designed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>nor do you want to always be responding to some questions that take away your time and concentration.I think that 's an important point .
I think that the people who make these pronouncements tend to work in jobs that do n't require complex analysis but are focussed on snap responses to situations .
The RA was from the Wall Street Journal , and I agree that email is probably not the best means of tactical communication on a trading floor .
The trouble comes when people who work in that way assume that everybody works in that way .
I once worked for an employer who decided that our workplace should be designed to maximise distraction and interruption because that would be " vibrant " and " creative " .
It might have been , but it was absolutely terrible for making sure that a system that could kill hundreds of people was safely designed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nor do you want to always be responding to some questions that take away your time and concentration.I think that's an important point.
I think that the people who make these pronouncements tend to work in jobs that don't require complex analysis but are focussed on snap responses to situations.
The RA was from the Wall Street Journal, and I agree that email is probably not the best means of tactical communication on a trading floor.
The trouble comes when people who work in that way assume that everybody works in that way.
I once worked for an employer who decided that our workplace should be designed to maximise distraction and interruption because that would be "vibrant" and "creative".
It might have been, but it was absolutely terrible for making sure that a system that could kill hundreds of people was safely designed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29749337</id>
	<title>Re:The Right Tool for the Right Job</title>
	<author>JStegmaier</author>
	<datestamp>1255511760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google Wave is actually all three of those forms. I've had instant-messenger style chats on Wave between me and my boss. We've started using it to replace email in some situations (something that will open up once there are other Wave clients.) And, of course, you can broadcast the communication out to anyone in Wave, and even outside of it with certain robots.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Wave is actually all three of those forms .
I 've had instant-messenger style chats on Wave between me and my boss .
We 've started using it to replace email in some situations ( something that will open up once there are other Wave clients .
) And , of course , you can broadcast the communication out to anyone in Wave , and even outside of it with certain robots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Wave is actually all three of those forms.
I've had instant-messenger style chats on Wave between me and my boss.
We've started using it to replace email in some situations (something that will open up once there are other Wave clients.
) And, of course, you can broadcast the communication out to anyone in Wave, and even outside of it with certain robots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743939</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29752401</id>
	<title>Re:The Right Tool for the Right Job</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1255530780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, but a minor nitpick here: in closed, corporate settings, instant messaging systems can play vital roles in catalyzing daily processes and getting stuff done. For instance, traders use it to pass quotes along quickly if it's something that needs immediate attention. Furthermore, it's appropriate in a business setting to know another person's presence, as it's expected that while they're working, they're needed.</p><p>You won't believe the commotion people can rile up if internal IM systems freak out...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , but a minor nitpick here : in closed , corporate settings , instant messaging systems can play vital roles in catalyzing daily processes and getting stuff done .
For instance , traders use it to pass quotes along quickly if it 's something that needs immediate attention .
Furthermore , it 's appropriate in a business setting to know another person 's presence , as it 's expected that while they 're working , they 're needed.You wo n't believe the commotion people can rile up if internal IM systems freak out.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, but a minor nitpick here: in closed, corporate settings, instant messaging systems can play vital roles in catalyzing daily processes and getting stuff done.
For instance, traders use it to pass quotes along quickly if it's something that needs immediate attention.
Furthermore, it's appropriate in a business setting to know another person's presence, as it's expected that while they're working, they're needed.You won't believe the commotion people can rile up if internal IM systems freak out...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744849</id>
	<title>So many reasons</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1255535580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are so many reasons e-mail isn't going away anytime soon.

</p><p>1) It's a protocol, like the telegraph, not a service like Microsoft/Google/AOL Whatever. You can set up mail servers anywhere to handle anything in any way, and still have it be interoperable with other mail servers on the Internet, provided you're even connected to it.

</p><p>2) This also means that it's decentralised, no one controls it, not Google, not anyone, you can't take it down by taking down or controlling any company. Likewise there are no terms of service or anything, and you know you can count on everybody using it since no-one can make it go away if they wanted to and everyone's using it.

</p><p>3) People like simple basic forms of communication. That's why we still use telephones with 10 figure telephone numbers when we could have videophones with sophisticated functions. The same goes for e-mail, it's the telegraph of the late 20th-early 21st century, that's what you use when you need to send text.

</p><p>4) Like telephone, it's ubiquitous, everybody and their momma on the Internet has it, you hardly can get away with anything out there without having an e-mail set up first. It's your phone number of the Internet, you even put it on your CV or your business card. It's almost more important than your telephone number. Not that e-mail is replacing the telephone, but in many situations it's just more advantageous.

</p><p>Now as for the problems there are with it. Spam. Unfortunately it's a problem inherent to something as open and decentralised. Anything else? Not really, you could argue that it's not that fancy, but when you think about it, it is. These days you get HTML e-mails full of images and what not, you can send anything you want with it.

</p><p>Actually, there's little the SMTP protocol prevents you from doing, only things your mail program doesn't allow. So e-mail is safe, for at least the few decades to come. Shall anything supplant it, it should be a new iteration of the protocol that would do whatever SMTP can't do, not a service like Twitter, Facebook or Google Whatever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are so many reasons e-mail is n't going away anytime soon .
1 ) It 's a protocol , like the telegraph , not a service like Microsoft/Google/AOL Whatever .
You can set up mail servers anywhere to handle anything in any way , and still have it be interoperable with other mail servers on the Internet , provided you 're even connected to it .
2 ) This also means that it 's decentralised , no one controls it , not Google , not anyone , you ca n't take it down by taking down or controlling any company .
Likewise there are no terms of service or anything , and you know you can count on everybody using it since no-one can make it go away if they wanted to and everyone 's using it .
3 ) People like simple basic forms of communication .
That 's why we still use telephones with 10 figure telephone numbers when we could have videophones with sophisticated functions .
The same goes for e-mail , it 's the telegraph of the late 20th-early 21st century , that 's what you use when you need to send text .
4 ) Like telephone , it 's ubiquitous , everybody and their momma on the Internet has it , you hardly can get away with anything out there without having an e-mail set up first .
It 's your phone number of the Internet , you even put it on your CV or your business card .
It 's almost more important than your telephone number .
Not that e-mail is replacing the telephone , but in many situations it 's just more advantageous .
Now as for the problems there are with it .
Spam. Unfortunately it 's a problem inherent to something as open and decentralised .
Anything else ?
Not really , you could argue that it 's not that fancy , but when you think about it , it is .
These days you get HTML e-mails full of images and what not , you can send anything you want with it .
Actually , there 's little the SMTP protocol prevents you from doing , only things your mail program does n't allow .
So e-mail is safe , for at least the few decades to come .
Shall anything supplant it , it should be a new iteration of the protocol that would do whatever SMTP ca n't do , not a service like Twitter , Facebook or Google Whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are so many reasons e-mail isn't going away anytime soon.
1) It's a protocol, like the telegraph, not a service like Microsoft/Google/AOL Whatever.
You can set up mail servers anywhere to handle anything in any way, and still have it be interoperable with other mail servers on the Internet, provided you're even connected to it.
2) This also means that it's decentralised, no one controls it, not Google, not anyone, you can't take it down by taking down or controlling any company.
Likewise there are no terms of service or anything, and you know you can count on everybody using it since no-one can make it go away if they wanted to and everyone's using it.
3) People like simple basic forms of communication.
That's why we still use telephones with 10 figure telephone numbers when we could have videophones with sophisticated functions.
The same goes for e-mail, it's the telegraph of the late 20th-early 21st century, that's what you use when you need to send text.
4) Like telephone, it's ubiquitous, everybody and their momma on the Internet has it, you hardly can get away with anything out there without having an e-mail set up first.
It's your phone number of the Internet, you even put it on your CV or your business card.
It's almost more important than your telephone number.
Not that e-mail is replacing the telephone, but in many situations it's just more advantageous.
Now as for the problems there are with it.
Spam. Unfortunately it's a problem inherent to something as open and decentralised.
Anything else?
Not really, you could argue that it's not that fancy, but when you think about it, it is.
These days you get HTML e-mails full of images and what not, you can send anything you want with it.
Actually, there's little the SMTP protocol prevents you from doing, only things your mail program doesn't allow.
So e-mail is safe, for at least the few decades to come.
Shall anything supplant it, it should be a new iteration of the protocol that would do whatever SMTP can't do, not a service like Twitter, Facebook or Google Whatever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29749471</id>
	<title>Re:The Right Tool for the Right Job</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1255512300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. Some of the work I do requires an actual attention span. I do not use IM, etc. exactly because people think it means I'm ready to jump at the slightest bit of trivium they care to spew my way. Twitter even explicitly says that's what it's for, why would I use that as a primary business communication tool?</p><p>Email properly queues up communications to me until I have a moment to look over it and respond by priority and based on how much time I have. When everything is top priority, nothing is. It's also entirely possible that email questions may require actual thought and consideration. The last thing we need is yet another tool that discourages careful thought and composition of a reply.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Some of the work I do requires an actual attention span .
I do not use IM , etc .
exactly because people think it means I 'm ready to jump at the slightest bit of trivium they care to spew my way .
Twitter even explicitly says that 's what it 's for , why would I use that as a primary business communication tool ? Email properly queues up communications to me until I have a moment to look over it and respond by priority and based on how much time I have .
When everything is top priority , nothing is .
It 's also entirely possible that email questions may require actual thought and consideration .
The last thing we need is yet another tool that discourages careful thought and composition of a reply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Some of the work I do requires an actual attention span.
I do not use IM, etc.
exactly because people think it means I'm ready to jump at the slightest bit of trivium they care to spew my way.
Twitter even explicitly says that's what it's for, why would I use that as a primary business communication tool?Email properly queues up communications to me until I have a moment to look over it and respond by priority and based on how much time I have.
When everything is top priority, nothing is.
It's also entirely possible that email questions may require actual thought and consideration.
The last thing we need is yet another tool that discourages careful thought and composition of a reply.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29746289</id>
	<title>Re:More social site users that email users? WTF?</title>
	<author>apoc.famine</author>
	<datestamp>1255541400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Multiple social networking sites linked to one email address, that's how. <br>
&nbsp; <br>If you don't bother linking the two together, it's really easy to get numbers like this. It's called "really poor statistics with unreliable research and no insight into your topic". It's all the rage these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Multiple social networking sites linked to one email address , that 's how .
  If you do n't bother linking the two together , it 's really easy to get numbers like this .
It 's called " really poor statistics with unreliable research and no insight into your topic " .
It 's all the rage these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Multiple social networking sites linked to one email address, that's how.
  If you don't bother linking the two together, it's really easy to get numbers like this.
It's called "really poor statistics with unreliable research and no insight into your topic".
It's all the rage these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744619</id>
	<title>where do the attachments go?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255534740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>dropbox, rapidshare, megaupload, depositfiles, filefactory, megashares, filefront, yousendit, easy-share, zippyshare, mediafire, share-online, vip-file, netload, 4shared, letitbit, allshares,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>dropbox , rapidshare , megaupload , depositfiles , filefactory , megashares , filefront , yousendit , easy-share , zippyshare , mediafire , share-online , vip-file , netload , 4shared , letitbit , allshares , .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dropbox, rapidshare, megaupload, depositfiles, filefactory, megashares, filefront, yousendit, easy-share, zippyshare, mediafire, share-online, vip-file, netload, 4shared, letitbit, allshares, ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29748093</id>
	<title>New-Age Sensationalism.....</title>
	<author>IHC Navistar</author>
	<datestamp>1255549620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When will people learn that these grandiose 'predictions' are simply cheap publicity attempts?</p><p>This, and articles that have false and misleading titles (especially the SlashDot article that stated students were able to take photos from outer space for $150) really hurt credibility, and harm articles that actually tell the TRUTH?</p><p>These kind of blatant lies (not like ones that are open to interpretation) are becoming more and more prevalent, with copy editors shitcanning the truth and allowing hack, half-witted pseudo-journalism to take it's place.</p><p>This is yet another reason print media is dying. The internet-version of absolute journalistic crap, iReport.com, isn't helping improve the tarnished image of journalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When will people learn that these grandiose 'predictions ' are simply cheap publicity attempts ? This , and articles that have false and misleading titles ( especially the SlashDot article that stated students were able to take photos from outer space for $ 150 ) really hurt credibility , and harm articles that actually tell the TRUTH ? These kind of blatant lies ( not like ones that are open to interpretation ) are becoming more and more prevalent , with copy editors shitcanning the truth and allowing hack , half-witted pseudo-journalism to take it 's place.This is yet another reason print media is dying .
The internet-version of absolute journalistic crap , iReport.com , is n't helping improve the tarnished image of journalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When will people learn that these grandiose 'predictions' are simply cheap publicity attempts?This, and articles that have false and misleading titles (especially the SlashDot article that stated students were able to take photos from outer space for $150) really hurt credibility, and harm articles that actually tell the TRUTH?These kind of blatant lies (not like ones that are open to interpretation) are becoming more and more prevalent, with copy editors shitcanning the truth and allowing hack, half-witted pseudo-journalism to take it's place.This is yet another reason print media is dying.
The internet-version of absolute journalistic crap, iReport.com, isn't helping improve the tarnished image of journalism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743345</id>
	<title>Tried to RTFA...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255528560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried to RTFA (well, not the first one, but the response from Fast Co) and failed. I got as far as:</p><blockquote><div><p>Twitter's on every tech-fan's lips</p></div></blockquote><p>(the first five words) and gave up. I'm a tech fan, but Twitter just doesn't interest me as it is. Making communication that short and easy just leads to drivel (or people using Twitter as an RSS feed for their site - I'll watch the site and its real RSS feed, thank you). Threading is hopeless in things like Twitter and while it might be semi-useful for faster conversations, it won't be as good as a proper IM client for a group chat.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried to RTFA ( well , not the first one , but the response from Fast Co ) and failed .
I got as far as : Twitter 's on every tech-fan 's lips ( the first five words ) and gave up .
I 'm a tech fan , but Twitter just does n't interest me as it is .
Making communication that short and easy just leads to drivel ( or people using Twitter as an RSS feed for their site - I 'll watch the site and its real RSS feed , thank you ) .
Threading is hopeless in things like Twitter and while it might be semi-useful for faster conversations , it wo n't be as good as a proper IM client for a group chat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried to RTFA (well, not the first one, but the response from Fast Co) and failed.
I got as far as:Twitter's on every tech-fan's lips(the first five words) and gave up.
I'm a tech fan, but Twitter just doesn't interest me as it is.
Making communication that short and easy just leads to drivel (or people using Twitter as an RSS feed for their site - I'll watch the site and its real RSS feed, thank you).
Threading is hopeless in things like Twitter and while it might be semi-useful for faster conversations, it won't be as good as a proper IM client for a group chat.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743591</id>
	<title>Re:The Right Tool for the Right Job</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255530180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with what you said about it and would add that we have this magical thing called "Time Zones" which the article seems to have forgotten. I, in California, am unlikely to find my colleagues in the UK or Kazakhstan on instant messenger in the afternoon (my time) when they are home in bed (or at least at dinner).<br> <br>Another thing is email is generally a much better medium for actually writing more than quick "time for lunch?" or "you sit by the window, is it raining?" type queries.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with what you said about it and would add that we have this magical thing called " Time Zones " which the article seems to have forgotten .
I , in California , am unlikely to find my colleagues in the UK or Kazakhstan on instant messenger in the afternoon ( my time ) when they are home in bed ( or at least at dinner ) .
Another thing is email is generally a much better medium for actually writing more than quick " time for lunch ?
" or " you sit by the window , is it raining ?
" type queries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with what you said about it and would add that we have this magical thing called "Time Zones" which the article seems to have forgotten.
I, in California, am unlikely to find my colleagues in the UK or Kazakhstan on instant messenger in the afternoon (my time) when they are home in bed (or at least at dinner).
Another thing is email is generally a much better medium for actually writing more than quick "time for lunch?
" or "you sit by the window, is it raining?
" type queries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744741</id>
	<title>Re:The Right Tool for the Right Job</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255535160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because you don't always need some response within 15 secs, nor do you want to always be responding to some questions that take away your time and concentration. Even if you have your email client open all the time, you can leave writing a reply to it for later time.</p></div><p>I recently got into the whole Getting Things Done fad. One piece of advice I saw on a famous web site oriented towards being organized was that you should set your software to check email no more frequently than once every half hour.</p><p>One of the best pieces of advice I've seen and implemented. I no longer frequently check email, because I know I can't have received any if 30 minutes hasn't passed. Fewer interruptions, and it's unlikely anyone wanted a reply that quickly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you do n't always need some response within 15 secs , nor do you want to always be responding to some questions that take away your time and concentration .
Even if you have your email client open all the time , you can leave writing a reply to it for later time.I recently got into the whole Getting Things Done fad .
One piece of advice I saw on a famous web site oriented towards being organized was that you should set your software to check email no more frequently than once every half hour.One of the best pieces of advice I 've seen and implemented .
I no longer frequently check email , because I know I ca n't have received any if 30 minutes has n't passed .
Fewer interruptions , and it 's unlikely anyone wanted a reply that quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you don't always need some response within 15 secs, nor do you want to always be responding to some questions that take away your time and concentration.
Even if you have your email client open all the time, you can leave writing a reply to it for later time.I recently got into the whole Getting Things Done fad.
One piece of advice I saw on a famous web site oriented towards being organized was that you should set your software to check email no more frequently than once every half hour.One of the best pieces of advice I've seen and implemented.
I no longer frequently check email, because I know I can't have received any if 30 minutes hasn't passed.
Fewer interruptions, and it's unlikely anyone wanted a reply that quickly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745395</id>
	<title>Re:Email is dead</title>
	<author>garcia</author>
	<datestamp>1255537860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Because it doesn't require my instantaneous attention and I get to control when I reply.</i></p><p>Neither does social media. I routinely schedule posts to Twitter for when I want them to go out. I can read the history on my own time. I don't see it as any different from e-mail in that regard.</p><p>Stop falling prey to the instantaneous nature pushed by those who use it heavily and you'll be fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it does n't require my instantaneous attention and I get to control when I reply.Neither does social media .
I routinely schedule posts to Twitter for when I want them to go out .
I can read the history on my own time .
I do n't see it as any different from e-mail in that regard.Stop falling prey to the instantaneous nature pushed by those who use it heavily and you 'll be fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it doesn't require my instantaneous attention and I get to control when I reply.Neither does social media.
I routinely schedule posts to Twitter for when I want them to go out.
I can read the history on my own time.
I don't see it as any different from e-mail in that regard.Stop falling prey to the instantaneous nature pushed by those who use it heavily and you'll be fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744085</id>
	<title>Confidential facebook?</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1255532460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, thanks to the wall-street journal I'll be sure to put all of my work-confidential (and someone will be sure to put their military top-secret) plans on Facebook, myspace, and google docs.<br> <br>

Internal e-mail, internal sharepoints, etc are the way to go.  Companies are starting to incorporate internal sharepoints because it saves bandwidth then trying to e-mail 100 people a 5 mb PDF file (which network admins just LOVE).  Especially since each time someone modifies the do cument they forward it back to the 100 people...where-as sharepoint can keep different versions of the same document - and overall saves space.  That, however, won't replace the e-mail...it just means that the e-mail will contain a URL to the sharepoint site.  Unless someone e-mails me I don't go to the sharepoint and most people are like that - how else will I know when someone uploaded a doc that is relevant to me.<br> <br>


But facebook? Yea right....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , thanks to the wall-street journal I 'll be sure to put all of my work-confidential ( and someone will be sure to put their military top-secret ) plans on Facebook , myspace , and google docs .
Internal e-mail , internal sharepoints , etc are the way to go .
Companies are starting to incorporate internal sharepoints because it saves bandwidth then trying to e-mail 100 people a 5 mb PDF file ( which network admins just LOVE ) .
Especially since each time someone modifies the do cument they forward it back to the 100 people...where-as sharepoint can keep different versions of the same document - and overall saves space .
That , however , wo n't replace the e-mail...it just means that the e-mail will contain a URL to the sharepoint site .
Unless someone e-mails me I do n't go to the sharepoint and most people are like that - how else will I know when someone uploaded a doc that is relevant to me .
But facebook ?
Yea right... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, thanks to the wall-street journal I'll be sure to put all of my work-confidential (and someone will be sure to put their military top-secret) plans on Facebook, myspace, and google docs.
Internal e-mail, internal sharepoints, etc are the way to go.
Companies are starting to incorporate internal sharepoints because it saves bandwidth then trying to e-mail 100 people a 5 mb PDF file (which network admins just LOVE).
Especially since each time someone modifies the do cument they forward it back to the 100 people...where-as sharepoint can keep different versions of the same document - and overall saves space.
That, however, won't replace the e-mail...it just means that the e-mail will contain a URL to the sharepoint site.
Unless someone e-mails me I don't go to the sharepoint and most people are like that - how else will I know when someone uploaded a doc that is relevant to me.
But facebook?
Yea right....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135</id>
	<title>The Right Tool for the Right Job</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1255526880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's all it comes down to.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But email was better suited to the way we used to use the Internet&mdash;logging off and on, checking our messages in bursts. Now, we are always connected, whether we are sitting at a desk or on a mobile phone. The always-on connection, in turn, has created a host of new ways to communicate that are much faster than email, and more fun.</p><p>Why wait for a response to an email when you get a quicker answer over instant messaging?</p></div><p>Because you don't always need some response within 15 secs, nor do you want to always be responding to some questions that take away your time and concentration. Even if you have your email client open all the time, you can leave writing a reply to it for later time.</p><p>If you know you need a quicker response, you send an IM or call my phone. Something in between and you send an SMS.</p><p>For that matter I dont want everyone to know everything about me, I dont want everyone to know I'm available or not, I dont want everyone to know all the other people I know, nor do I want everyone to know something that only certain people should know.There's also no way you'll get me to install facebook or twitter apps on my phone. If I'm not on computer, there's no need to contact me other way than calling me (and I dont even always keep my phone with me - if I'm busy with other stuff, I'll call you back on better time)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all it comes down to.But email was better suited to the way we used to use the Internet    logging off and on , checking our messages in bursts .
Now , we are always connected , whether we are sitting at a desk or on a mobile phone .
The always-on connection , in turn , has created a host of new ways to communicate that are much faster than email , and more fun.Why wait for a response to an email when you get a quicker answer over instant messaging ? Because you do n't always need some response within 15 secs , nor do you want to always be responding to some questions that take away your time and concentration .
Even if you have your email client open all the time , you can leave writing a reply to it for later time.If you know you need a quicker response , you send an IM or call my phone .
Something in between and you send an SMS.For that matter I dont want everyone to know everything about me , I dont want everyone to know I 'm available or not , I dont want everyone to know all the other people I know , nor do I want everyone to know something that only certain people should know.There 's also no way you 'll get me to install facebook or twitter apps on my phone .
If I 'm not on computer , there 's no need to contact me other way than calling me ( and I dont even always keep my phone with me - if I 'm busy with other stuff , I 'll call you back on better time )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all it comes down to.But email was better suited to the way we used to use the Internet—logging off and on, checking our messages in bursts.
Now, we are always connected, whether we are sitting at a desk or on a mobile phone.
The always-on connection, in turn, has created a host of new ways to communicate that are much faster than email, and more fun.Why wait for a response to an email when you get a quicker answer over instant messaging?Because you don't always need some response within 15 secs, nor do you want to always be responding to some questions that take away your time and concentration.
Even if you have your email client open all the time, you can leave writing a reply to it for later time.If you know you need a quicker response, you send an IM or call my phone.
Something in between and you send an SMS.For that matter I dont want everyone to know everything about me, I dont want everyone to know I'm available or not, I dont want everyone to know all the other people I know, nor do I want everyone to know something that only certain people should know.There's also no way you'll get me to install facebook or twitter apps on my phone.
If I'm not on computer, there's no need to contact me other way than calling me (and I dont even always keep my phone with me - if I'm busy with other stuff, I'll call you back on better time)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743215</id>
	<title>Actually</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1255527660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main shortcoming of Facebook is archival. Other than that, it's far superior for personal communication that I might otherwise do over email.</p><p>But archival is not worth the danger. My grandchildren, if they care about my correspondence, will have my email folders to look through to learn a bit about those that came before them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main shortcoming of Facebook is archival .
Other than that , it 's far superior for personal communication that I might otherwise do over email.But archival is not worth the danger .
My grandchildren , if they care about my correspondence , will have my email folders to look through to learn a bit about those that came before them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main shortcoming of Facebook is archival.
Other than that, it's far superior for personal communication that I might otherwise do over email.But archival is not worth the danger.
My grandchildren, if they care about my correspondence, will have my email folders to look through to learn a bit about those that came before them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743759</id>
	<title>Us locked down guys have no choice! Email or NADA.</title>
	<author>jakekatz</author>
	<datestamp>1255530960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, let me give you a bit about my workplace: No cell phones (or any derivative thereof) allowed in, they stay in the car.

Networking uses WebSense with every conceivable word the Christian Right hate to use on the "Dirty Word List" and block any site the even hints of a smell of "Social Networking" is blocked.  Any type of streamed video, I.E, CNN, YouTube etc... are blocked.  Anything that resembles online messaging is also blocko!!!

What am I trying to say, at our workplace, we [[ live &amp; die by email ]] it's our life blood, so we always muse at these prognosticators who get so wound up in the 'pop' culture of these networking sites that they dis everything else around them.  Sigh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , let me give you a bit about my workplace : No cell phones ( or any derivative thereof ) allowed in , they stay in the car .
Networking uses WebSense with every conceivable word the Christian Right hate to use on the " Dirty Word List " and block any site the even hints of a smell of " Social Networking " is blocked .
Any type of streamed video , I.E , CNN , YouTube etc... are blocked .
Anything that resembles online messaging is also blocko ! ! !
What am I trying to say , at our workplace , we [ [ live &amp; die by email ] ] it 's our life blood , so we always muse at these prognosticators who get so wound up in the 'pop ' culture of these networking sites that they dis everything else around them .
Sigh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, let me give you a bit about my workplace: No cell phones (or any derivative thereof) allowed in, they stay in the car.
Networking uses WebSense with every conceivable word the Christian Right hate to use on the "Dirty Word List" and block any site the even hints of a smell of "Social Networking" is blocked.
Any type of streamed video, I.E, CNN, YouTube etc... are blocked.
Anything that resembles online messaging is also blocko!!!
What am I trying to say, at our workplace, we [[ live &amp; die by email ]] it's our life blood, so we always muse at these prognosticators who get so wound up in the 'pop' culture of these networking sites that they dis everything else around them.
Sigh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743745</id>
	<title>E-Mail ain't broke!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255530900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't fix it!! Go find a cure for cancer!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't fix it ! !
Go find a cure for cancer !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't fix it!!
Go find a cure for cancer!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743375</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps</title>
	<author>joh</author>
	<datestamp>1255528800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every email has a message ID and points at the email it refers to. Every sane email client under the sun has had threading since ages. It's not that email has a problem here, it's just that many email clients suck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every email has a message ID and points at the email it refers to .
Every sane email client under the sun has had threading since ages .
It 's not that email has a problem here , it 's just that many email clients suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every email has a message ID and points at the email it refers to.
Every sane email client under the sun has had threading since ages.
It's not that email has a problem here, it's just that many email clients suck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744945</id>
	<title>Re:The trouble with...</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1255536000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A key reason (in my book) as to why email is a superior communications mechanism than Facebook: Social networking sites are a polling mechanism in which the recipient of the message has to check a bunch of web pages for their information (that behavior ups the ad view count among other things). Email is a message queue system, with far less overhead on the recipient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A key reason ( in my book ) as to why email is a superior communications mechanism than Facebook : Social networking sites are a polling mechanism in which the recipient of the message has to check a bunch of web pages for their information ( that behavior ups the ad view count among other things ) .
Email is a message queue system , with far less overhead on the recipient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A key reason (in my book) as to why email is a superior communications mechanism than Facebook: Social networking sites are a polling mechanism in which the recipient of the message has to check a bunch of web pages for their information (that behavior ups the ad view count among other things).
Email is a message queue system, with far less overhead on the recipient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743293</id>
	<title>Those who don't know history</title>
	<author>jbolden</author>
	<datestamp>1255528260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the call is for a collaboration / communication system which works like email but can pull in large groups that has an open standard.</p><p>Sounds like a call to bring back and update Usenet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the call is for a collaboration / communication system which works like email but can pull in large groups that has an open standard.Sounds like a call to bring back and update Usenet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the call is for a collaboration / communication system which works like email but can pull in large groups that has an open standard.Sounds like a call to bring back and update Usenet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744969</id>
	<title>Re:You just don't remove email</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1255536060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Email evolves, anyone who used it back in it's early days will be able to testify to that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Email evolves , anyone who used it back in it 's early days will be able to testify to that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Email evolves, anyone who used it back in it's early days will be able to testify to that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745517</id>
	<title>My girlfriend likes email</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255538340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Email is not dead here. My girlfriend lives on the opposite side of the country, so, we use email to keep in touch. Roughly 50 time per day. Each. No, we don't use FaceBook. No, we don't use Twitter. We do use IM occasionally, but email works best. Oh, and guys (that have been modding poor old AC into oblivion for years)? Did I mention I have a girlfriend?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Email is not dead here .
My girlfriend lives on the opposite side of the country , so , we use email to keep in touch .
Roughly 50 time per day .
Each. No , we do n't use FaceBook .
No , we do n't use Twitter .
We do use IM occasionally , but email works best .
Oh , and guys ( that have been modding poor old AC into oblivion for years ) ?
Did I mention I have a girlfriend ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Email is not dead here.
My girlfriend lives on the opposite side of the country, so, we use email to keep in touch.
Roughly 50 time per day.
Each. No, we don't use FaceBook.
No, we don't use Twitter.
We do use IM occasionally, but email works best.
Oh, and guys (that have been modding poor old AC into oblivion for years)?
Did I mention I have a girlfriend?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29751943</id>
	<title>Re:Attachments can go to hell</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1255527720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm all for anything that makes it impossible to keep attachments directly with the message!</i></p><p>And I'm the opposite, I want to be able to send and receive attachments.  With your way for those who want attachments it's tough luck, with my way it's a personal matter.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm all for anything that makes it impossible to keep attachments directly with the message ! And I 'm the opposite , I want to be able to send and receive attachments .
With your way for those who want attachments it 's tough luck , with my way it 's a personal matter .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm all for anything that makes it impossible to keep attachments directly with the message!And I'm the opposite, I want to be able to send and receive attachments.
With your way for those who want attachments it's tough luck, with my way it's a personal matter.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29747909</id>
	<title>Re:google wave? come on now...</title>
	<author>jbengt</author>
	<datestamp>1255548840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> . . . except that sometimes it would be better to insert comments directly into someone's message, than to paste a quote into my reply. Sometimes it would be better to edit someone's text directly, than to reply with my suggested amendments.</p></div><p>Can't you already do that with e-mail?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
except that sometimes it would be better to insert comments directly into someone 's message , than to paste a quote into my reply .
Sometimes it would be better to edit someone 's text directly , than to reply with my suggested amendments.Ca n't you already do that with e-mail ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> .
. .
except that sometimes it would be better to insert comments directly into someone's message, than to paste a quote into my reply.
Sometimes it would be better to edit someone's text directly, than to reply with my suggested amendments.Can't you already do that with e-mail?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29750465</id>
	<title>Re:Email is dead</title>
	<author>jgrahn</author>
	<datestamp>1255517220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The problem with email isn't its asynchronous nature and that's not what's being declared dead here. Everyone loves that part. The problem is how its oversimplified inbox/outbox/folder/reply-to-all format overcomplicates multi-person and multi-project conversations.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's what USENET (or rather, a company-wide news server) would be good for, if only people
were aware of it and could handle it.  And if Microsoft had a Usenet client which worked.
</p><p>
I often wish I could see all other technical discussions in the projects I work in.
Now I know they are taking place, but over email, and I know it's mostly by accident
I end up on the Cc: list or not.  And people can't quote, trim or change the subject
line properly, as the discussion shifts to another topic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with email is n't its asynchronous nature and that 's not what 's being declared dead here .
Everyone loves that part .
The problem is how its oversimplified inbox/outbox/folder/reply-to-all format overcomplicates multi-person and multi-project conversations.That 's what USENET ( or rather , a company-wide news server ) would be good for , if only people were aware of it and could handle it .
And if Microsoft had a Usenet client which worked .
I often wish I could see all other technical discussions in the projects I work in .
Now I know they are taking place , but over email , and I know it 's mostly by accident I end up on the Cc : list or not .
And people ca n't quote , trim or change the subject line properly , as the discussion shifts to another topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with email isn't its asynchronous nature and that's not what's being declared dead here.
Everyone loves that part.
The problem is how its oversimplified inbox/outbox/folder/reply-to-all format overcomplicates multi-person and multi-project conversations.That's what USENET (or rather, a company-wide news server) would be good for, if only people
were aware of it and could handle it.
And if Microsoft had a Usenet client which worked.
I often wish I could see all other technical discussions in the projects I work in.
Now I know they are taking place, but over email, and I know it's mostly by accident
I end up on the Cc: list or not.
And people can't quote, trim or change the subject
line properly, as the discussion shifts to another topic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743553</id>
	<title>Why Facebook and twitter will prematurely die.</title>
	<author>vegaspace</author>
	<datestamp>1255529880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that Facebook and Twitter will die before email, because email has not a propertary service and FB an TW are owned by someone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that Facebook and Twitter will die before email , because email has not a propertary service and FB an TW are owned by someone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that Facebook and Twitter will die before email, because email has not a propertary service and FB an TW are owned by someone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743509</id>
	<title>Re:google wave? come on now...</title>
	<author>boombaard</author>
	<datestamp>1255529580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The largest advantage to wave I see (as well as the biggest potential issue) is authentication. Right now anyone can spoof email.. That should be over if people would switch to something like Wave.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The largest advantage to wave I see ( as well as the biggest potential issue ) is authentication .
Right now anyone can spoof email.. That should be over if people would switch to something like Wave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The largest advantage to wave I see (as well as the biggest potential issue) is authentication.
Right now anyone can spoof email.. That should be over if people would switch to something like Wave.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743327</id>
	<title>Corporate data? Not even the start!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255528500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Would you trust Facebook, with its odd history of rights control, with a corporate Excel file?</i></p><p>Hell no. I wouldn't even trust Facebook to reassure my mother about a doctor's visit, or talk to my brother about his family. It's creepy the things people use social networking tools for, sometimes. It's like going down to the local bar and yelling out the results of your blood tests to whatever yobboes happened to be in earshot.</p><p>Yes, technically, email can be intercepted. So can phone calls and physical letters. And someone can be listening in on you in the restaurant, even if you keep your voice down. But... damn...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you trust Facebook , with its odd history of rights control , with a corporate Excel file ? Hell no .
I would n't even trust Facebook to reassure my mother about a doctor 's visit , or talk to my brother about his family .
It 's creepy the things people use social networking tools for , sometimes .
It 's like going down to the local bar and yelling out the results of your blood tests to whatever yobboes happened to be in earshot.Yes , technically , email can be intercepted .
So can phone calls and physical letters .
And someone can be listening in on you in the restaurant , even if you keep your voice down .
But... damn.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you trust Facebook, with its odd history of rights control, with a corporate Excel file?Hell no.
I wouldn't even trust Facebook to reassure my mother about a doctor's visit, or talk to my brother about his family.
It's creepy the things people use social networking tools for, sometimes.
It's like going down to the local bar and yelling out the results of your blood tests to whatever yobboes happened to be in earshot.Yes, technically, email can be intercepted.
So can phone calls and physical letters.
And someone can be listening in on you in the restaurant, even if you keep your voice down.
But... damn...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29751529</id>
	<title>Re:Actually</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1255524600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The main shortcoming of Facebook is archival. Other than that, it's far superior for personal communication that I might otherwise do over email.</i></p><p>email is superior to Facebook, all I need to communicate with others on the net is email.  I do not have to sign up for anything proprietary that blocks me from communicating to those who do not  use said proprietary vendor.  Heck even Facebook uses email.  With email all anyone needs to communicate is net access but to use Facebook, Twitter, and all the others you need an account with each one.  Now from what I've read of Google's Wave, it's an open standard and any could setup their own Wave server.  That's just another software bundle to use and I don't see any advantage, then again I just heard of it.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main shortcoming of Facebook is archival .
Other than that , it 's far superior for personal communication that I might otherwise do over email.email is superior to Facebook , all I need to communicate with others on the net is email .
I do not have to sign up for anything proprietary that blocks me from communicating to those who do not use said proprietary vendor .
Heck even Facebook uses email .
With email all anyone needs to communicate is net access but to use Facebook , Twitter , and all the others you need an account with each one .
Now from what I 've read of Google 's Wave , it 's an open standard and any could setup their own Wave server .
That 's just another software bundle to use and I do n't see any advantage , then again I just heard of it .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main shortcoming of Facebook is archival.
Other than that, it's far superior for personal communication that I might otherwise do over email.email is superior to Facebook, all I need to communicate with others on the net is email.
I do not have to sign up for anything proprietary that blocks me from communicating to those who do not  use said proprietary vendor.
Heck even Facebook uses email.
With email all anyone needs to communicate is net access but to use Facebook, Twitter, and all the others you need an account with each one.
Now from what I've read of Google's Wave, it's an open standard and any could setup their own Wave server.
That's just another software bundle to use and I don't see any advantage, then again I just heard of it.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743427</id>
	<title>Re:The Right Tool for the Right Job</title>
	<author>PalmKiller</author>
	<datestamp>1255529100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Our company does not allow IM for these exact reasons, it kills work flow.  We started blocking it back when ICQ was just getting started.  We also don't use facebook and the like but we do use less personal collaboration software with some of our clients, but never for inter-office communications.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Our company does not allow IM for these exact reasons , it kills work flow .
We started blocking it back when ICQ was just getting started .
We also do n't use facebook and the like but we do use less personal collaboration software with some of our clients , but never for inter-office communications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our company does not allow IM for these exact reasons, it kills work flow.
We started blocking it back when ICQ was just getting started.
We also don't use facebook and the like but we do use less personal collaboration software with some of our clients, but never for inter-office communications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29749233</id>
	<title>Yep, Wave = new SMTP.</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1255511280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The thing with Wave is that it *is* an email replacement. If you use it a certain way, it's directly analogous to email.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yep, this has always been my impression of Wave too.  It seems to me that Wave is just the idea of IMAP, extended to cope with OTHER modern communication methods, like IM, and and twitter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing with Wave is that it * is * an email replacement .
If you use it a certain way , it 's directly analogous to email.Yep , this has always been my impression of Wave too .
It seems to me that Wave is just the idea of IMAP , extended to cope with OTHER modern communication methods , like IM , and and twitter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing with Wave is that it *is* an email replacement.
If you use it a certain way, it's directly analogous to email.Yep, this has always been my impression of Wave too.
It seems to me that Wave is just the idea of IMAP, extended to cope with OTHER modern communication methods, like IM, and and twitter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744881</id>
	<title>Don't knock Wave until you try it</title>
	<author>MarkWatson</author>
	<datestamp>1255535700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I only had a sandbox account this summer, all I did with Wave was experiment with writing robots.</p><p>Now that Wave is out in beta form and I have been able to invite family members, friends, and some of my customers, I am starting to appreciate Wave as an email substitute.</p><p>I am also getting some customer feedback that they might want to build systems layered on top of Wave.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I only had a sandbox account this summer , all I did with Wave was experiment with writing robots.Now that Wave is out in beta form and I have been able to invite family members , friends , and some of my customers , I am starting to appreciate Wave as an email substitute.I am also getting some customer feedback that they might want to build systems layered on top of Wave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I only had a sandbox account this summer, all I did with Wave was experiment with writing robots.Now that Wave is out in beta form and I have been able to invite family members, friends, and some of my customers, I am starting to appreciate Wave as an email substitute.I am also getting some customer feedback that they might want to build systems layered on top of Wave.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743333</id>
	<title>Premature Declaration?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255528500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>moar liek Premature Ejaculation, amirite???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>moar liek Premature Ejaculation , amirite ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>moar liek Premature Ejaculation, amirite??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744891</id>
	<title>Re:Attachments can go to hell</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1255535760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So, I'm all for anything that makes it impossible to keep attachments directly with the message!</p></div><p>A decent mail policy?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , I 'm all for anything that makes it impossible to keep attachments directly with the message ! A decent mail policy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, I'm all for anything that makes it impossible to keep attachments directly with the message!A decent mail policy?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29772835</id>
	<title>Re:Attachments can go to hell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255686480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree 100\%. All attachments can go to <tt>hell@aol.com</tt>. Whenever I want to send some data, I find it much easier to just put it on Rapidshare or snail mail them a CD. Much easier than using the ugly hack of attachments. Most people don't even notice the paper clip and just ignore it, but I'm sure they'll notice that big "THE DISK IS IN THE MAIL" text or a Rapidshare link written in 72-point Comic Sans MS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree 100 \ % .
All attachments can go to hell @ aol.com .
Whenever I want to send some data , I find it much easier to just put it on Rapidshare or snail mail them a CD .
Much easier than using the ugly hack of attachments .
Most people do n't even notice the paper clip and just ignore it , but I 'm sure they 'll notice that big " THE DISK IS IN THE MAIL " text or a Rapidshare link written in 72-point Comic Sans MS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree 100\%.
All attachments can go to hell@aol.com.
Whenever I want to send some data, I find it much easier to just put it on Rapidshare or snail mail them a CD.
Much easier than using the ugly hack of attachments.
Most people don't even notice the paper clip and just ignore it, but I'm sure they'll notice that big "THE DISK IS IN THE MAIL" text or a Rapidshare link written in 72-point Comic Sans MS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743353</id>
	<title>Re:The trouble with...</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1255528680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't have email yet.<br>I'm waiting for SMTP over twitter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have email yet.I 'm waiting for SMTP over twitter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have email yet.I'm waiting for SMTP over twitter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743149</id>
	<title>Email is dead</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1255527060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Long live email.</p><p>
Because it doesn't require my instantaneous attention and I get to control when I reply.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Long live email .
Because it does n't require my instantaneous attention and I get to control when I reply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Long live email.
Because it doesn't require my instantaneous attention and I get to control when I reply.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743823</id>
	<title>...we are the borg;</title>
	<author>scorpivs</author>
	<datestamp>1255531260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>lower your firewalls and power-down your preferences; twitting and booking face are the collective versions of email; your financial and technological distinctiveness will be adapted to suit our own; you will be assimilated; individuality is futile...</htmltext>
<tokenext>lower your firewalls and power-down your preferences ; twitting and booking face are the collective versions of email ; your financial and technological distinctiveness will be adapted to suit our own ; you will be assimilated ; individuality is futile.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lower your firewalls and power-down your preferences; twitting and booking face are the collective versions of email; your financial and technological distinctiveness will be adapted to suit our own; you will be assimilated; individuality is futile...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744779</id>
	<title>Re:Corporate data? Not even the start!</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1255535280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree it would be silly to use Facebook for corporate info, just as most companies run their own email servers instead of using an ISP's. But:</p><p><i>Yes, technically, email can be intercepted.</i></p><p>Yes, but more than that, you have to trust your ISP.</p><p>So I take it you either don't use email for talking about those things, or you run your own server, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree it would be silly to use Facebook for corporate info , just as most companies run their own email servers instead of using an ISP 's .
But : Yes , technically , email can be intercepted.Yes , but more than that , you have to trust your ISP.So I take it you either do n't use email for talking about those things , or you run your own server , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree it would be silly to use Facebook for corporate info, just as most companies run their own email servers instead of using an ISP's.
But:Yes, technically, email can be intercepted.Yes, but more than that, you have to trust your ISP.So I take it you either don't use email for talking about those things, or you run your own server, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744377</id>
	<title>Re:The Right Tool for the Right Job</title>
	<author>wisnoskij</author>
	<datestamp>1255533720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because you don't always need some response within 15 secs, nor do you want to always be responding to some questions that take away your time and concentration. Even if you have your email client open all the time, you can leave writing a reply to it for later time.</p><p>If you know you need a quicker response, you send an IM or call my phone. Something in between and you send an SMS.</p><p>For that matter I dont want everyone to know everything about me, I dont want everyone to know I'm available or not, I dont want everyone to know all the other people I know, nor do I want everyone to know something that only certain people should know.There's also no way you'll get me to install facebook or twitter apps on my phone. If I'm not on computer, there's no need to contact me other way than calling me (and I dont even always keep my phone with me - if I'm busy with other stuff, I'll call you back on better time)</p></div><p>You do not need to instantly respond to instant messages, nor do you need to indicate if you are online or not (most people are just constantly "away" in my experience).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you do n't always need some response within 15 secs , nor do you want to always be responding to some questions that take away your time and concentration .
Even if you have your email client open all the time , you can leave writing a reply to it for later time.If you know you need a quicker response , you send an IM or call my phone .
Something in between and you send an SMS.For that matter I dont want everyone to know everything about me , I dont want everyone to know I 'm available or not , I dont want everyone to know all the other people I know , nor do I want everyone to know something that only certain people should know.There 's also no way you 'll get me to install facebook or twitter apps on my phone .
If I 'm not on computer , there 's no need to contact me other way than calling me ( and I dont even always keep my phone with me - if I 'm busy with other stuff , I 'll call you back on better time ) You do not need to instantly respond to instant messages , nor do you need to indicate if you are online or not ( most people are just constantly " away " in my experience ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you don't always need some response within 15 secs, nor do you want to always be responding to some questions that take away your time and concentration.
Even if you have your email client open all the time, you can leave writing a reply to it for later time.If you know you need a quicker response, you send an IM or call my phone.
Something in between and you send an SMS.For that matter I dont want everyone to know everything about me, I dont want everyone to know I'm available or not, I dont want everyone to know all the other people I know, nor do I want everyone to know something that only certain people should know.There's also no way you'll get me to install facebook or twitter apps on my phone.
If I'm not on computer, there's no need to contact me other way than calling me (and I dont even always keep my phone with me - if I'm busy with other stuff, I'll call you back on better time)You do not need to instantly respond to instant messages, nor do you need to indicate if you are online or not (most people are just constantly "away" in my experience).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29754315</id>
	<title>Re:You just don't remove email</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255640160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that e-mail will be succeeded by another form of e-mail, probably one that costs money to either get or to send messages with (to make spamming more expensive). The main problem with designing a system like that is the "trusted server", I mean why should we trust that server(or group of servers) and how to we stop them from being compromised.</p><p>Also there is the switch over problem. Even if many could agree that spam-free e-mail would be nice, it would be hard to get everyone to change at the same time, and until a majority has switched over to "e2-mail" companies will have to use both, and at that time "e2-mail" will only be a hassle without providing much benefit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that e-mail will be succeeded by another form of e-mail , probably one that costs money to either get or to send messages with ( to make spamming more expensive ) .
The main problem with designing a system like that is the " trusted server " , I mean why should we trust that server ( or group of servers ) and how to we stop them from being compromised.Also there is the switch over problem .
Even if many could agree that spam-free e-mail would be nice , it would be hard to get everyone to change at the same time , and until a majority has switched over to " e2-mail " companies will have to use both , and at that time " e2-mail " will only be a hassle without providing much benefit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that e-mail will be succeeded by another form of e-mail, probably one that costs money to either get or to send messages with (to make spamming more expensive).
The main problem with designing a system like that is the "trusted server", I mean why should we trust that server(or group of servers) and how to we stop them from being compromised.Also there is the switch over problem.
Even if many could agree that spam-free e-mail would be nice, it would be hard to get everyone to change at the same time, and until a majority has switched over to "e2-mail" companies will have to use both, and at that time "e2-mail" will only be a hassle without providing much benefit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744051</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29746861</id>
	<title>Re:Another overlooked e-mail strength</title>
	<author>Rhaban</author>
	<datestamp>1255544220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can such wave servers communicate with one another?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can such wave servers communicate with one another ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can such wave servers communicate with one another?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743939</id>
	<title>Re:The Right Tool for the Right Job</title>
	<author>tomhath</author>
	<datestamp>1255531800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are basically three forms of communication we use:

<p>

1) Synchronous Conversation - face-to-face, telephone, IM
</p><p>

2) Asynchronous Mail - snail mail, email, fax, telegraph
</p><p>

3) Broadcasting - mass media, blogging, Twitter, Facebook, Google Wave
</p><p>

The article muddles all three together without recognizing that there's a place for each.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are basically three forms of communication we use : 1 ) Synchronous Conversation - face-to-face , telephone , IM 2 ) Asynchronous Mail - snail mail , email , fax , telegraph 3 ) Broadcasting - mass media , blogging , Twitter , Facebook , Google Wave The article muddles all three together without recognizing that there 's a place for each .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are basically three forms of communication we use:



1) Synchronous Conversation - face-to-face, telephone, IM


2) Asynchronous Mail - snail mail, email, fax, telegraph


3) Broadcasting - mass media, blogging, Twitter, Facebook, Google Wave


The article muddles all three together without recognizing that there's a place for each.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744521</id>
	<title>flooding</title>
	<author>lavardo</author>
	<datestamp>1255534320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>quote from WSJ:   "a river that continues to flow as you dip into it."     and flood.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>quote from WSJ : " a river that continues to flow as you dip into it .
" and flood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>quote from WSJ:   "a river that continues to flow as you dip into it.
"     and flood.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744197</id>
	<title>i first read that as....</title>
	<author>inerlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1255532940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Emeril...... i was scared for a second.... BAM!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Emeril...... i was scared for a second.... BAM !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Emeril...... i was scared for a second.... BAM!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744879</id>
	<title>This just in from netcraft</title>
	<author>Icegryphon</author>
	<datestamp>1255535700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IRC is also dead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IRC is also dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IRC is also dead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743891</id>
	<title>Re:Good. Now leave me alone.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255531620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guaranteed? I suppose you don't admin any MTAs and don't know what you are talking about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guaranteed ?
I suppose you do n't admin any MTAs and do n't know what you are talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guaranteed?
I suppose you don't admin any MTAs and don't know what you are talking about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743371</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1255528740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Email already has a threading mechanism, you just need to use a client that supports it.  In fact, there are two such mechanisms:  In-Reply-To and References headers, either one of which can be used to construct a threaded view.  Try using KMail, Evolution, Thunderbird, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Email already has a threading mechanism , you just need to use a client that supports it .
In fact , there are two such mechanisms : In-Reply-To and References headers , either one of which can be used to construct a threaded view .
Try using KMail , Evolution , Thunderbird , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Email already has a threading mechanism, you just need to use a client that supports it.
In fact, there are two such mechanisms:  In-Reply-To and References headers, either one of which can be used to construct a threaded view.
Try using KMail, Evolution, Thunderbird, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743419</id>
	<title>Niche Tools</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255529100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Email is the killer app. These other thingies are nice niche addons(plugins!?) but they won't replace email.</p><p>The only major nuisance to email is slight visual noise. (I DON'T count spam! I mean legit notes.) It might be nice to have a 1-click "you have a phone call" for the frontline admins. But darn near EVERYTHING else gains value from being logged.</p><p>Anyone who thinks they can super-promote twitter-clones is forgetting the lovely CYA bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Email is the killer app .
These other thingies are nice niche addons ( plugins ! ?
) but they wo n't replace email.The only major nuisance to email is slight visual noise .
( I DO N'T count spam !
I mean legit notes .
) It might be nice to have a 1-click " you have a phone call " for the frontline admins .
But darn near EVERYTHING else gains value from being logged.Anyone who thinks they can super-promote twitter-clones is forgetting the lovely CYA bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Email is the killer app.
These other thingies are nice niche addons(plugins!?
) but they won't replace email.The only major nuisance to email is slight visual noise.
(I DON'T count spam!
I mean legit notes.
) It might be nice to have a 1-click "you have a phone call" for the frontline admins.
But darn near EVERYTHING else gains value from being logged.Anyone who thinks they can super-promote twitter-clones is forgetting the lovely CYA bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744227</id>
	<title>Its all about Context</title>
	<author>RobertLTux</author>
	<datestamp>1255533060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google Wave (as soon as they open it up to the unwashed masses) has as one of its big features that the "Legacy Services" are invited to the party.<br>To this day you could write out on a parchment with a Quill Pen a message seal it with a wax seal and then hand it to a guy that can hop on a horse<br>and then ride to another guy that will ride to another guy (loop here several times) and then hand it to whomever you wanted it to go to.</p><p>Someday Email will be seen as being just as quaint but stuff that works should not be discarded just because its "old" (because its dangerous yes because its illegal yes but just because its old NO).</p><p>Excuse me i see a messenger at my door step.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Wave ( as soon as they open it up to the unwashed masses ) has as one of its big features that the " Legacy Services " are invited to the party.To this day you could write out on a parchment with a Quill Pen a message seal it with a wax seal and then hand it to a guy that can hop on a horseand then ride to another guy that will ride to another guy ( loop here several times ) and then hand it to whomever you wanted it to go to.Someday Email will be seen as being just as quaint but stuff that works should not be discarded just because its " old " ( because its dangerous yes because its illegal yes but just because its old NO ) .Excuse me i see a messenger at my door step .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Wave (as soon as they open it up to the unwashed masses) has as one of its big features that the "Legacy Services" are invited to the party.To this day you could write out on a parchment with a Quill Pen a message seal it with a wax seal and then hand it to a guy that can hop on a horseand then ride to another guy that will ride to another guy (loop here several times) and then hand it to whomever you wanted it to go to.Someday Email will be seen as being just as quaint but stuff that works should not be discarded just because its "old" (because its dangerous yes because its illegal yes but just because its old NO).Excuse me i see a messenger at my door step.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29746583</id>
	<title>Re:The Right Tool for the Right Job</title>
	<author>jc42</author>
	<datestamp>1255542900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But email was better suited to the way we used to use the Internet--logging off and on, checking our messages in bursts. Now, we are always connected, whether we are sitting at a desk or on a mobile phone. The always-on connection, in turn, has created a host of new ways to communicate that are much faster than email, and more fun.</p><p>Why wait for a response to an email when you get a quicker answer over instant messaging?</p></div></blockquote><p>I can't see where you got that quote from, since it's not in the summary or any other message I can see.  But in any case, it's totally wrong.  When the term "Internet" was first officially defined, around 1980 or so, and on its predecessor the ARPAnet, there was no logging on/of for the Internet.  Since the mid-1970s at least, it has always-on, and email has always been instantaneous from a human viewpoint.  The only delay back then was how long it took for the recipient to notice that they had a message, type a reply, and send it.  Of course, they might have been away from their machine, which is still true, or they might be too busy to check their emial.  But those are true of IM and the other modern schemes that are nothing more than the original email design with a different name.</p><p>The main reason that people ever talk about "logging on/off the Internet" is because when the Internet became available to the latecomers using Microsoft software, DOS and Windows couldn't implement Internet email correctly, because they couldn't run servers. Until 1995 or so, they couldn't even connect directly to the Internet; they had to connect via modem to a "server" machine somewhere.  So the original design of an end-to-end connection and a file copy couldn't be implemented on those machines, and we had to come up with the kludge of using a third-party "server" machine to store the email until the MS system called up and asked for it.  This was also forced on a lot of the rest of us by ISPs that had (and often still have) a "no servers allowed" rule, which was (and still is) a total violation of the Internet's design docs (the RFCs).</p><p>If anything, it's the IM, twitter, Facebook, etc. crowds that are the clumsy ones, because they all depend on a third-party server that saves your message,and often depend on time-wasting polling by your machine to deliver the messages.  And they still do nothing at all about the fact that the recipient can ignore the message, or can read it but wait a while to reply, perhaps because they want to give you a good, thoughtful reply rather than just dashing off the first thing that comes to their mind.</p><p>In any case, if your Internet service and email work like the RFCs say it should, email sent use the RFC 821 standard protocol (dated August 1982) should be faster than IM, Facebook or twitter.  The sender's machine will connect to yours, the message will be transmitted, and it'll be on your machine it a few milliseconds, as it was in 1982.  If your messaging system is slower than this, it's incredibly badly designed, and can't even match a 27-year-old Internet standard that's now considered obsolete.  If your ISP or OS can't (or refuses to) do even that, you're not using a modern messaging system; you're using something that's so badly engineered that Internet users back in the early 1980s would have laughed at it.</p><p>(Yes, I know that email back then was often a lot slower.  But I also remember working on a project in 1983, in which we timed Internet email between machines scattered around North America. If we dropped the numbers for machines that were offline during the test, the mean delivery time for messages of a few hundred bytes was around one second.  Connecting to other continents wasn't good at the time, and the first try usually failed for them, so the email became "store and forward" via an almost-always-on server.  So the Internet itself, when all the links in the path were live, was capable of delivering messages within a second.  The main problem was the frequent lack of connectivity.  It got worse in the early 1990s as people started using modems for Internet access.)</p><p>(Should I add "Get off my lawn!"?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But email was better suited to the way we used to use the Internet--logging off and on , checking our messages in bursts .
Now , we are always connected , whether we are sitting at a desk or on a mobile phone .
The always-on connection , in turn , has created a host of new ways to communicate that are much faster than email , and more fun.Why wait for a response to an email when you get a quicker answer over instant messaging ? I ca n't see where you got that quote from , since it 's not in the summary or any other message I can see .
But in any case , it 's totally wrong .
When the term " Internet " was first officially defined , around 1980 or so , and on its predecessor the ARPAnet , there was no logging on/of for the Internet .
Since the mid-1970s at least , it has always-on , and email has always been instantaneous from a human viewpoint .
The only delay back then was how long it took for the recipient to notice that they had a message , type a reply , and send it .
Of course , they might have been away from their machine , which is still true , or they might be too busy to check their emial .
But those are true of IM and the other modern schemes that are nothing more than the original email design with a different name.The main reason that people ever talk about " logging on/off the Internet " is because when the Internet became available to the latecomers using Microsoft software , DOS and Windows could n't implement Internet email correctly , because they could n't run servers .
Until 1995 or so , they could n't even connect directly to the Internet ; they had to connect via modem to a " server " machine somewhere .
So the original design of an end-to-end connection and a file copy could n't be implemented on those machines , and we had to come up with the kludge of using a third-party " server " machine to store the email until the MS system called up and asked for it .
This was also forced on a lot of the rest of us by ISPs that had ( and often still have ) a " no servers allowed " rule , which was ( and still is ) a total violation of the Internet 's design docs ( the RFCs ) .If anything , it 's the IM , twitter , Facebook , etc .
crowds that are the clumsy ones , because they all depend on a third-party server that saves your message,and often depend on time-wasting polling by your machine to deliver the messages .
And they still do nothing at all about the fact that the recipient can ignore the message , or can read it but wait a while to reply , perhaps because they want to give you a good , thoughtful reply rather than just dashing off the first thing that comes to their mind.In any case , if your Internet service and email work like the RFCs say it should , email sent use the RFC 821 standard protocol ( dated August 1982 ) should be faster than IM , Facebook or twitter .
The sender 's machine will connect to yours , the message will be transmitted , and it 'll be on your machine it a few milliseconds , as it was in 1982 .
If your messaging system is slower than this , it 's incredibly badly designed , and ca n't even match a 27-year-old Internet standard that 's now considered obsolete .
If your ISP or OS ca n't ( or refuses to ) do even that , you 're not using a modern messaging system ; you 're using something that 's so badly engineered that Internet users back in the early 1980s would have laughed at it .
( Yes , I know that email back then was often a lot slower .
But I also remember working on a project in 1983 , in which we timed Internet email between machines scattered around North America .
If we dropped the numbers for machines that were offline during the test , the mean delivery time for messages of a few hundred bytes was around one second .
Connecting to other continents was n't good at the time , and the first try usually failed for them , so the email became " store and forward " via an almost-always-on server .
So the Internet itself , when all the links in the path were live , was capable of delivering messages within a second .
The main problem was the frequent lack of connectivity .
It got worse in the early 1990s as people started using modems for Internet access .
) ( Should I add " Get off my lawn ! " ?
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But email was better suited to the way we used to use the Internet--logging off and on, checking our messages in bursts.
Now, we are always connected, whether we are sitting at a desk or on a mobile phone.
The always-on connection, in turn, has created a host of new ways to communicate that are much faster than email, and more fun.Why wait for a response to an email when you get a quicker answer over instant messaging?I can't see where you got that quote from, since it's not in the summary or any other message I can see.
But in any case, it's totally wrong.
When the term "Internet" was first officially defined, around 1980 or so, and on its predecessor the ARPAnet, there was no logging on/of for the Internet.
Since the mid-1970s at least, it has always-on, and email has always been instantaneous from a human viewpoint.
The only delay back then was how long it took for the recipient to notice that they had a message, type a reply, and send it.
Of course, they might have been away from their machine, which is still true, or they might be too busy to check their emial.
But those are true of IM and the other modern schemes that are nothing more than the original email design with a different name.The main reason that people ever talk about "logging on/off the Internet" is because when the Internet became available to the latecomers using Microsoft software, DOS and Windows couldn't implement Internet email correctly, because they couldn't run servers.
Until 1995 or so, they couldn't even connect directly to the Internet; they had to connect via modem to a "server" machine somewhere.
So the original design of an end-to-end connection and a file copy couldn't be implemented on those machines, and we had to come up with the kludge of using a third-party "server" machine to store the email until the MS system called up and asked for it.
This was also forced on a lot of the rest of us by ISPs that had (and often still have) a "no servers allowed" rule, which was (and still is) a total violation of the Internet's design docs (the RFCs).If anything, it's the IM, twitter, Facebook, etc.
crowds that are the clumsy ones, because they all depend on a third-party server that saves your message,and often depend on time-wasting polling by your machine to deliver the messages.
And they still do nothing at all about the fact that the recipient can ignore the message, or can read it but wait a while to reply, perhaps because they want to give you a good, thoughtful reply rather than just dashing off the first thing that comes to their mind.In any case, if your Internet service and email work like the RFCs say it should, email sent use the RFC 821 standard protocol (dated August 1982) should be faster than IM, Facebook or twitter.
The sender's machine will connect to yours, the message will be transmitted, and it'll be on your machine it a few milliseconds, as it was in 1982.
If your messaging system is slower than this, it's incredibly badly designed, and can't even match a 27-year-old Internet standard that's now considered obsolete.
If your ISP or OS can't (or refuses to) do even that, you're not using a modern messaging system; you're using something that's so badly engineered that Internet users back in the early 1980s would have laughed at it.
(Yes, I know that email back then was often a lot slower.
But I also remember working on a project in 1983, in which we timed Internet email between machines scattered around North America.
If we dropped the numbers for machines that were offline during the test, the mean delivery time for messages of a few hundred bytes was around one second.
Connecting to other continents wasn't good at the time, and the first try usually failed for them, so the email became "store and forward" via an almost-always-on server.
So the Internet itself, when all the links in the path were live, was capable of delivering messages within a second.
The main problem was the frequent lack of connectivity.
It got worse in the early 1990s as people started using modems for Internet access.
)(Should I add "Get off my lawn!"?
;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743705</id>
	<title>Re:The Right Tool for the Right Job</title>
	<author>tonyAG</author>
	<datestamp>1255530780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm in agreement with this as well. I'm so tired of
businesses and employers thinking that I always
want to be 'on'. This is their desire and dream.
<br> <br>
This is why I'm more protective of my time and privacy. Once you are leashed by today's technology, it become very hard to rid yourself of that shackle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in agreement with this as well .
I 'm so tired of businesses and employers thinking that I always want to be 'on' .
This is their desire and dream .
This is why I 'm more protective of my time and privacy .
Once you are leashed by today 's technology , it become very hard to rid yourself of that shackle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in agreement with this as well.
I'm so tired of
businesses and employers thinking that I always
want to be 'on'.
This is their desire and dream.
This is why I'm more protective of my time and privacy.
Once you are leashed by today's technology, it become very hard to rid yourself of that shackle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743313</id>
	<title>Re:The Right Tool for the Right Job</title>
	<author>owlnation</author>
	<datestamp>1255528440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Absolutely right.<br> <br>

Email is useful for formal communication, for a long term record of something -- e.g. for CYA. It is also possible to get some work done by only checking mail at certain points of the day.<br> <br>

IM, Twitter, Facebook etc really are of very limited use in a business situation -- they are slower and clumsier than a phone conversation or face to face. Probably useful in situations where no phone is available (or VOIP for international calls) or for quick mass distributed maessages, but other than that they are inferior communication systems -- people just like them, that's all.<br> <br>

Nothing kills productivity more than IM. I'm astonished that businesses use it, it makes very little sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely right .
Email is useful for formal communication , for a long term record of something -- e.g .
for CYA .
It is also possible to get some work done by only checking mail at certain points of the day .
IM , Twitter , Facebook etc really are of very limited use in a business situation -- they are slower and clumsier than a phone conversation or face to face .
Probably useful in situations where no phone is available ( or VOIP for international calls ) or for quick mass distributed maessages , but other than that they are inferior communication systems -- people just like them , that 's all .
Nothing kills productivity more than IM .
I 'm astonished that businesses use it , it makes very little sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely right.
Email is useful for formal communication, for a long term record of something -- e.g.
for CYA.
It is also possible to get some work done by only checking mail at certain points of the day.
IM, Twitter, Facebook etc really are of very limited use in a business situation -- they are slower and clumsier than a phone conversation or face to face.
Probably useful in situations where no phone is available (or VOIP for international calls) or for quick mass distributed maessages, but other than that they are inferior communication systems -- people just like them, that's all.
Nothing kills productivity more than IM.
I'm astonished that businesses use it, it makes very little sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743483</id>
	<title>Re:The Right Tool for the Right Job</title>
	<author>lorenlal</author>
	<datestamp>1255529400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nothing kills productivity more than IM. I'm astonished that businesses use it, it makes very little sense.</p></div><p>Your post is solid except for quoted statement. IM is quite good at dropping informal notes, or quick questions.  Also - The ability to add people to the conversation allows us to have a discussion instantly... In cases where the conversation only needs a few minutes, we can have the discussion, make a decision and conclude the whole matter in the amount of time it'd take to schedule the con call and get everyone dialed in.</p><p>Yes, it can be misused.  But so can any other method of communication...  Especially email.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing kills productivity more than IM .
I 'm astonished that businesses use it , it makes very little sense.Your post is solid except for quoted statement .
IM is quite good at dropping informal notes , or quick questions .
Also - The ability to add people to the conversation allows us to have a discussion instantly... In cases where the conversation only needs a few minutes , we can have the discussion , make a decision and conclude the whole matter in the amount of time it 'd take to schedule the con call and get everyone dialed in.Yes , it can be misused .
But so can any other method of communication... Especially email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing kills productivity more than IM.
I'm astonished that businesses use it, it makes very little sense.Your post is solid except for quoted statement.
IM is quite good at dropping informal notes, or quick questions.
Also - The ability to add people to the conversation allows us to have a discussion instantly... In cases where the conversation only needs a few minutes, we can have the discussion, make a decision and conclude the whole matter in the amount of time it'd take to schedule the con call and get everyone dialed in.Yes, it can be misused.
But so can any other method of communication...  Especially email.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29747469</id>
	<title>Re:Another overlooked e-mail strength</title>
	<author>ZerdZerd</author>
	<datestamp>1255546920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, didn't you hear. Google wave is not single-source. You can deploy it yourself, and you can collaborate with others on doing that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , did n't you hear .
Google wave is not single-source .
You can deploy it yourself , and you can collaborate with others on doing that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, didn't you hear.
Google wave is not single-source.
You can deploy it yourself, and you can collaborate with others on doing that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743875</id>
	<title>Re:Attachments can go to hell</title>
	<author>snspdaarf</author>
	<datestamp>1255531500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My mother solved that problem by deleting every email that comes in with an attachment. One of her idiot friends told her that attachments were used to attack computers, and now <i>every</i> attachment is seen as someone attacking her PC.
<br> <br>
More to your point, it is not just attachments stored in email. Mom also uses the URL dropdown in the browser as a substitute for bookmarks, and gets upset when someone else uses the computer because it makes her favorites drop off the list.
<br> <br>
What needs to be dealt with is the lazy, untrained at the beginning, developing bad habits. How that will get done is beyond me. I don't try and do any computer work for Mom because all she will do is argue with me. If she has to pay for someone to come in and set things up, she will listen to them because she is paying for it. And, I don't get stuck doing tech support from a thousand miles away. Unfortunately, that means email stores attachments (in the in box, of course), and history equals bookmarks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My mother solved that problem by deleting every email that comes in with an attachment .
One of her idiot friends told her that attachments were used to attack computers , and now every attachment is seen as someone attacking her PC .
More to your point , it is not just attachments stored in email .
Mom also uses the URL dropdown in the browser as a substitute for bookmarks , and gets upset when someone else uses the computer because it makes her favorites drop off the list .
What needs to be dealt with is the lazy , untrained at the beginning , developing bad habits .
How that will get done is beyond me .
I do n't try and do any computer work for Mom because all she will do is argue with me .
If she has to pay for someone to come in and set things up , she will listen to them because she is paying for it .
And , I do n't get stuck doing tech support from a thousand miles away .
Unfortunately , that means email stores attachments ( in the in box , of course ) , and history equals bookmarks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My mother solved that problem by deleting every email that comes in with an attachment.
One of her idiot friends told her that attachments were used to attack computers, and now every attachment is seen as someone attacking her PC.
More to your point, it is not just attachments stored in email.
Mom also uses the URL dropdown in the browser as a substitute for bookmarks, and gets upset when someone else uses the computer because it makes her favorites drop off the list.
What needs to be dealt with is the lazy, untrained at the beginning, developing bad habits.
How that will get done is beyond me.
I don't try and do any computer work for Mom because all she will do is argue with me.
If she has to pay for someone to come in and set things up, she will listen to them because she is paying for it.
And, I don't get stuck doing tech support from a thousand miles away.
Unfortunately, that means email stores attachments (in the in box, of course), and history equals bookmarks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745693</id>
	<title>Re:Yet another misleading title</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255539060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The article in question is not saying email is dying.  In fact, it says email usage is growing:</p><p>&gt;  Little wonder that while email continues to grow, other types of communication services are growing far faster.</p></div><p>It's the Wallstreet Journal; Wallstreet. For these business morons everything that doesn't exhibit mid double-digit growth is dying.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article in question is not saying email is dying .
In fact , it says email usage is growing : &gt; Little wonder that while email continues to grow , other types of communication services are growing far faster.It 's the Wallstreet Journal ; Wallstreet .
For these business morons everything that does n't exhibit mid double-digit growth is dying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article in question is not saying email is dying.
In fact, it says email usage is growing:&gt;  Little wonder that while email continues to grow, other types of communication services are growing far faster.It's the Wallstreet Journal; Wallstreet.
For these business morons everything that doesn't exhibit mid double-digit growth is dying.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744999</id>
	<title>Email doesn't have quizzes</title>
	<author>hessian</author>
	<datestamp>1255536240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like email.</p><p>No one has asked me to join Mafia wars, take a pointless quiz, figure out what five food items represent me, or requested I indulge in some disgusting-sounding activity called "tweeting."</p><p>From where I stand, if you're "tweeting" a lot, you need to eat more fiber.</p><p>Email is great because it allows complete formalized communication, which gives the greatest clarity.</p><p>If I wanted to conduct my life through the palsied pidgin of IM, I'd do it that way. But the results just aren't that great.</p><p>Feel free to email me any comments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like email.No one has asked me to join Mafia wars , take a pointless quiz , figure out what five food items represent me , or requested I indulge in some disgusting-sounding activity called " tweeting .
" From where I stand , if you 're " tweeting " a lot , you need to eat more fiber.Email is great because it allows complete formalized communication , which gives the greatest clarity.If I wanted to conduct my life through the palsied pidgin of IM , I 'd do it that way .
But the results just are n't that great.Feel free to email me any comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like email.No one has asked me to join Mafia wars, take a pointless quiz, figure out what five food items represent me, or requested I indulge in some disgusting-sounding activity called "tweeting.
"From where I stand, if you're "tweeting" a lot, you need to eat more fiber.Email is great because it allows complete formalized communication, which gives the greatest clarity.If I wanted to conduct my life through the palsied pidgin of IM, I'd do it that way.
But the results just aren't that great.Feel free to email me any comments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743953</id>
	<title>more social networker users than email users?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255531860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't get those numbers:</p><p>In August this year, 276.9 million people in the U.S., Europe, Australia, and Brazil used email (that's equivalent to 90\% of the U.S. population). Last year the same figure stood at 229.2 million, meaning a rise of 21\% has occurred. But, on the other hand, this August some 301.5 million people used a social-networking type of site</p><p>How can that be if you need an email account to even register at twitter or facebook?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't get those numbers : In August this year , 276.9 million people in the U.S. , Europe , Australia , and Brazil used email ( that 's equivalent to 90 \ % of the U.S. population ) . Last year the same figure stood at 229.2 million , meaning a rise of 21 \ % has occurred .
But , on the other hand , this August some 301.5 million people used a social-networking type of siteHow can that be if you need an email account to even register at twitter or facebook ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't get those numbers:In August this year, 276.9 million people in the U.S., Europe, Australia, and Brazil used email (that's equivalent to 90\% of the U.S. population). Last year the same figure stood at 229.2 million, meaning a rise of 21\% has occurred.
But, on the other hand, this August some 301.5 million people used a social-networking type of siteHow can that be if you need an email account to even register at twitter or facebook?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29747133</id>
	<title>Re:Another overlooked e-mail strength</title>
	<author>gweilo8888</author>
	<datestamp>1255545420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep, couldn't agree more. Facebook just had an <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139311/Facebook\_deals\_with\_missing\_accounts\_150\_000\_angry\_users" title="computerworld.com" rel="nofollow">outage of eight+ days for 150,000 users</a> [computerworld.com] (I was one of them), and couldn't even be bothered to give status updates on the situation (or even confirm there was a problem for the first three days). Twitter regularly has its own problems, as well.<br>
<br>
Anybody who wants email replaced with either of these (or their ilk) needs their head examined.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , could n't agree more .
Facebook just had an outage of eight + days for 150,000 users [ computerworld.com ] ( I was one of them ) , and could n't even be bothered to give status updates on the situation ( or even confirm there was a problem for the first three days ) .
Twitter regularly has its own problems , as well .
Anybody who wants email replaced with either of these ( or their ilk ) needs their head examined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, couldn't agree more.
Facebook just had an outage of eight+ days for 150,000 users [computerworld.com] (I was one of them), and couldn't even be bothered to give status updates on the situation (or even confirm there was a problem for the first three days).
Twitter regularly has its own problems, as well.
Anybody who wants email replaced with either of these (or their ilk) needs their head examined.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744005</id>
	<title>I love it when the Wall Street Journal does this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255532100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder when they are gonna realize that we aren't listening.....  mostly because of articles like this one...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder when they are gon na realize that we are n't listening..... mostly because of articles like this one.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder when they are gonna realize that we aren't listening.....  mostly because of articles like this one...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743207</id>
	<title>I totally agree!</title>
	<author>davidbrit2</author>
	<datestamp>1255527600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In fact, I think I'll send them an email right now to let them know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , I think I 'll send them an email right now to let them know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, I think I'll send them an email right now to let them know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743977</id>
	<title>Maybe they meant....</title>
	<author>Dcnjoe60</author>
	<datestamp>1255531980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they meant that email on the mainframe is dead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they meant that email on the mainframe is dead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they meant that email on the mainframe is dead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745811</id>
	<title>Probably been mentioned already..but...</title>
	<author>davidmcg</author>
	<datestamp>1255539480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sadly, an ever-increasing number of people are relying too heavily on Facebook to keep in touch with friends, collegues etc.  The problem lies with the fact that relying on Facebook to organise and contact your friends is such a silly move.  Email has the advantage that it's an open standard.  Anyone can create an email client.  However, Facebook is just one entity.  It is not an open communication standard and, as soon as Facebook go the way of the dodo, say goodbye to all your friends because you never took the time to ensure you had an alternative way of contacting them such as email.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , an ever-increasing number of people are relying too heavily on Facebook to keep in touch with friends , collegues etc .
The problem lies with the fact that relying on Facebook to organise and contact your friends is such a silly move .
Email has the advantage that it 's an open standard .
Anyone can create an email client .
However , Facebook is just one entity .
It is not an open communication standard and , as soon as Facebook go the way of the dodo , say goodbye to all your friends because you never took the time to ensure you had an alternative way of contacting them such as email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, an ever-increasing number of people are relying too heavily on Facebook to keep in touch with friends, collegues etc.
The problem lies with the fact that relying on Facebook to organise and contact your friends is such a silly move.
Email has the advantage that it's an open standard.
Anyone can create an email client.
However, Facebook is just one entity.
It is not an open communication standard and, as soon as Facebook go the way of the dodo, say goodbye to all your friends because you never took the time to ensure you had an alternative way of contacting them such as email.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744731</id>
	<title>Re:The trouble with...</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1255535100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed - there are some attempts to allow compatibility between servers/systems, most notably OpenID. Sort of like Jabber is trying to do for IM. Although mention OpenID here, and you get people foaming at the mouth about how it's somehow flawed because you couldn't use it for your bank account (does anyone use email or Jabber as the only means of security for their bank?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed - there are some attempts to allow compatibility between servers/systems , most notably OpenID .
Sort of like Jabber is trying to do for IM .
Although mention OpenID here , and you get people foaming at the mouth about how it 's somehow flawed because you could n't use it for your bank account ( does anyone use email or Jabber as the only means of security for their bank ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed - there are some attempts to allow compatibility between servers/systems, most notably OpenID.
Sort of like Jabber is trying to do for IM.
Although mention OpenID here, and you get people foaming at the mouth about how it's somehow flawed because you couldn't use it for your bank account (does anyone use email or Jabber as the only means of security for their bank?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744675</id>
	<title>Re:The Right Tool for the Right Job</title>
	<author>StormyWeather</author>
	<datestamp>1255534920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Better yet use email as a near instant response tool.  I personally have gmail pushing email to my cell phone so I get it very fast, and I have rules set up on the server side that if certain people send me emails, or there are certain things in the subject then it forwards the email to the SMS address for my cell phone.   This is a much better solution in my opinion than having to open up your phone every time an email comes in.</p><p>Email is still king, and in my opinion should remain so.  It is a simple elegant superior replacement for the postal letter mail system.  Last night I searched my email for an invoice I sent a customer three years ago, and found it within a few seconds, opened the invoice, and printed it out.  How in the hell are you going to do something like that with twitter or facebook.</p><p>I personally like facebook when I'm sitting somewhere with nothing to do and can open it up on my phone.  I don't like twitter because I see no benefit in using it over email+facebook, plus the last few times I tried to get on twitters web site it either crashed, or took forever to come up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better yet use email as a near instant response tool .
I personally have gmail pushing email to my cell phone so I get it very fast , and I have rules set up on the server side that if certain people send me emails , or there are certain things in the subject then it forwards the email to the SMS address for my cell phone .
This is a much better solution in my opinion than having to open up your phone every time an email comes in.Email is still king , and in my opinion should remain so .
It is a simple elegant superior replacement for the postal letter mail system .
Last night I searched my email for an invoice I sent a customer three years ago , and found it within a few seconds , opened the invoice , and printed it out .
How in the hell are you going to do something like that with twitter or facebook.I personally like facebook when I 'm sitting somewhere with nothing to do and can open it up on my phone .
I do n't like twitter because I see no benefit in using it over email + facebook , plus the last few times I tried to get on twitters web site it either crashed , or took forever to come up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better yet use email as a near instant response tool.
I personally have gmail pushing email to my cell phone so I get it very fast, and I have rules set up on the server side that if certain people send me emails, or there are certain things in the subject then it forwards the email to the SMS address for my cell phone.
This is a much better solution in my opinion than having to open up your phone every time an email comes in.Email is still king, and in my opinion should remain so.
It is a simple elegant superior replacement for the postal letter mail system.
Last night I searched my email for an invoice I sent a customer three years ago, and found it within a few seconds, opened the invoice, and printed it out.
How in the hell are you going to do something like that with twitter or facebook.I personally like facebook when I'm sitting somewhere with nothing to do and can open it up on my phone.
I don't like twitter because I see no benefit in using it over email+facebook, plus the last few times I tried to get on twitters web site it either crashed, or took forever to come up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743217</id>
	<title>Perhaps</title>
	<author>Grimnir512</author>
	<datestamp>1255527720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We should not get rid of E-mail so much as improve it. E-mail could be easily improved by adding ideas such as threading which would quite easily overcome the complicated mess that is quoting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should not get rid of E-mail so much as improve it .
E-mail could be easily improved by adding ideas such as threading which would quite easily overcome the complicated mess that is quoting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should not get rid of E-mail so much as improve it.
E-mail could be easily improved by adding ideas such as threading which would quite easily overcome the complicated mess that is quoting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743367</id>
	<title>Re:google wave? come on now...</title>
	<author>slim</author>
	<datestamp>1255528740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing with Wave is that it *is* an email replacement. If you use it a certain way, it's directly analogous to email.</p><p>You can then *choose* to bring Wave's other features into your conversation.</p><p>The way I see it, email is almost perfect, except that sometimes it would be better to insert comments directly into someone's message, than to paste a quote into my reply. Sometimes it would be better to edit someone's text directly, than to reply with my suggested amendments. And Wave let's you do that.</p><p>Like email, it won't take off unless you have a critical mass of contacts on it. It's no good using Wave to organise a BBQ, if most of the people I want to invite don't have Wave. I tried to push adoption of email in an organisation which didn't already use it, once. People would seldom check their inbox, because it was usually empty. People used other methods to contact people, because they knew email inboxes seldom got checked. Catch 22.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing with Wave is that it * is * an email replacement .
If you use it a certain way , it 's directly analogous to email.You can then * choose * to bring Wave 's other features into your conversation.The way I see it , email is almost perfect , except that sometimes it would be better to insert comments directly into someone 's message , than to paste a quote into my reply .
Sometimes it would be better to edit someone 's text directly , than to reply with my suggested amendments .
And Wave let 's you do that.Like email , it wo n't take off unless you have a critical mass of contacts on it .
It 's no good using Wave to organise a BBQ , if most of the people I want to invite do n't have Wave .
I tried to push adoption of email in an organisation which did n't already use it , once .
People would seldom check their inbox , because it was usually empty .
People used other methods to contact people , because they knew email inboxes seldom got checked .
Catch 22 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing with Wave is that it *is* an email replacement.
If you use it a certain way, it's directly analogous to email.You can then *choose* to bring Wave's other features into your conversation.The way I see it, email is almost perfect, except that sometimes it would be better to insert comments directly into someone's message, than to paste a quote into my reply.
Sometimes it would be better to edit someone's text directly, than to reply with my suggested amendments.
And Wave let's you do that.Like email, it won't take off unless you have a critical mass of contacts on it.
It's no good using Wave to organise a BBQ, if most of the people I want to invite don't have Wave.
I tried to push adoption of email in an organisation which didn't already use it, once.
People would seldom check their inbox, because it was usually empty.
People used other methods to contact people, because they knew email inboxes seldom got checked.
Catch 22.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743421</id>
	<title>Re:The trouble with...</title>
	<author>tverbeek</author>
	<datestamp>1255529100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't subscribe to Facebook and Twitter, and I feel pretty confident in saying that I never will.  Facebook would be just one more web site I have to visit, and Twitter... I can't even imagine a use for it in my life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't subscribe to Facebook and Twitter , and I feel pretty confident in saying that I never will .
Facebook would be just one more web site I have to visit , and Twitter... I ca n't even imagine a use for it in my life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't subscribe to Facebook and Twitter, and I feel pretty confident in saying that I never will.
Facebook would be just one more web site I have to visit, and Twitter... I can't even imagine a use for it in my life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745499</id>
	<title>Twitter - sigh.</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1255538280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Consider Twitter. The service allows users to send 140-character messages to people who have subscribed to see them, called followers.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Let's not, but since you mentioned it... Messages are "tweets" and "followers are "twits" - ya, you heard me; get over it Twitter users.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider Twitter .
The service allows users to send 140-character messages to people who have subscribed to see them , called followers .
Let 's not , but since you mentioned it... Messages are " tweets " and " followers are " twits " - ya , you heard me ; get over it Twitter users .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider Twitter.
The service allows users to send 140-character messages to people who have subscribed to see them, called followers.
Let's not, but since you mentioned it... Messages are "tweets" and "followers are "twits" - ya, you heard me; get over it Twitter users.
:-)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745349</id>
	<title>Re:The trouble with...</title>
	<author>lavardo</author>
	<datestamp>1255537680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i'll be sure to set up you an email account and send it via FedEx or UPS next day so you can have an email account. But, wait. Email is dying!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>i 'll be sure to set up you an email account and send it via FedEx or UPS next day so you can have an email account .
But , wait .
Email is dying ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i'll be sure to set up you an email account and send it via FedEx or UPS next day so you can have an email account.
But, wait.
Email is dying!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743995</id>
	<title>tro7l</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255532040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">are attending a whEther to repeat being GAY QNIGGERS.</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>are attending a whEther to repeat being GAY QNIGGERS .
[ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are attending a whEther to repeat being GAY QNIGGERS.
[goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744865</id>
	<title>fa1l2ors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255535640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>very sick and its 7he pr0ject is in Slashdot 'BSD is</htmltext>
<tokenext>very sick and its 7he pr0ject is in Slashdot 'BSD is</tokentext>
<sentencetext>very sick and its 7he pr0ject is in Slashdot 'BSD is</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744559</id>
	<title>Re:Another overlooked e-mail strength</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255534440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, Wave is being developed as an open standard. Google is opening the protocol. They will also maintain an open source reference implementation for anyone to deploy in their own corner of the 'net.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , Wave is being developed as an open standard .
Google is opening the protocol .
They will also maintain an open source reference implementation for anyone to deploy in their own corner of the 'net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, Wave is being developed as an open standard.
Google is opening the protocol.
They will also maintain an open source reference implementation for anyone to deploy in their own corner of the 'net.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745401</id>
	<title>I didn't understand why it was flamebait before</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1255537860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... and I still don't now. The guy doesn't like people making declarations - you might not share the opinion, but what's flamebait about it? Do we mod down anyone who uses naughty language, or what?</htmltext>
<tokenext>... and I still do n't now .
The guy does n't like people making declarations - you might not share the opinion , but what 's flamebait about it ?
Do we mod down anyone who uses naughty language , or what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and I still don't now.
The guy doesn't like people making declarations - you might not share the opinion, but what's flamebait about it?
Do we mod down anyone who uses naughty language, or what?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29750467</id>
	<title>Facebook, Google Wave, Email, Twitter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255517220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spot the odd one out.</p><p>That's right, folks.  Only one of the above doesn't require lock-in to a single vendor nor depend on a silly "cloud" for storing correspondence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spot the odd one out.That 's right , folks .
Only one of the above does n't require lock-in to a single vendor nor depend on a silly " cloud " for storing correspondence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spot the odd one out.That's right, folks.
Only one of the above doesn't require lock-in to a single vendor nor depend on a silly "cloud" for storing correspondence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29767143</id>
	<title>Re:Corporate data? Not even the start!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255695960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, going around shouting the intimate details of your personal life seems to becoming more popular.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , going around shouting the intimate details of your personal life seems to becoming more popular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, going around shouting the intimate details of your personal life seems to becoming more popular.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29747713</id>
	<title>Re:google wave? come on now...</title>
	<author>Nasarius</author>
	<datestamp>1255547940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's no good using Wave to organise a BBQ, if most of the people I want to invite don't have Wave.</p></div></blockquote><p>

The neat thing about Wave is that it's an app platform. Even the original demo included a use case where comments on a blog from non-Wave users would get pushed back to the wave.
<br> <br>
Right now, Wave is slow (at least the dev sandbox is...I'm not on the main server yet), broken, missing features, and largely closed. But it won't stay that way. Bridging tools will be created where they make sense (collaborate on a document then push it out via email is an obvious one), tons of cool Wave-specific apps will be developed, and everything will be improved. Will it replace email <i>right now</i>? No, of course not. But its featureset is such that it probably will eventually, because it will do everything email can and a whole lot more.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's no good using Wave to organise a BBQ , if most of the people I want to invite do n't have Wave .
The neat thing about Wave is that it 's an app platform .
Even the original demo included a use case where comments on a blog from non-Wave users would get pushed back to the wave .
Right now , Wave is slow ( at least the dev sandbox is...I 'm not on the main server yet ) , broken , missing features , and largely closed .
But it wo n't stay that way .
Bridging tools will be created where they make sense ( collaborate on a document then push it out via email is an obvious one ) , tons of cool Wave-specific apps will be developed , and everything will be improved .
Will it replace email right now ?
No , of course not .
But its featureset is such that it probably will eventually , because it will do everything email can and a whole lot more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's no good using Wave to organise a BBQ, if most of the people I want to invite don't have Wave.
The neat thing about Wave is that it's an app platform.
Even the original demo included a use case where comments on a blog from non-Wave users would get pushed back to the wave.
Right now, Wave is slow (at least the dev sandbox is...I'm not on the main server yet), broken, missing features, and largely closed.
But it won't stay that way.
Bridging tools will be created where they make sense (collaborate on a document then push it out via email is an obvious one), tons of cool Wave-specific apps will be developed, and everything will be improved.
Will it replace email right now?
No, of course not.
But its featureset is such that it probably will eventually, because it will do everything email can and a whole lot more.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743367</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743269</id>
	<title>Re:Actually</title>
	<author>polar red</author>
	<datestamp>1255528020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if they care about my correspondence, will have my email folders to look through to learn a bit about those that came before them.</p></div><p>I hardly ever look into my email archive; And I wouldn't think the people coming after me would take the time or effort skimming all those 1000-s of emails<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if they care about my correspondence , will have my email folders to look through to learn a bit about those that came before them.I hardly ever look into my email archive ; And I would n't think the people coming after me would take the time or effort skimming all those 1000-s of emails .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if they care about my correspondence, will have my email folders to look through to learn a bit about those that came before them.I hardly ever look into my email archive; And I wouldn't think the people coming after me would take the time or effort skimming all those 1000-s of emails ...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29781301</id>
	<title>Re:More social site users that email users? WTF?</title>
	<author>KingAlanI</author>
	<datestamp>1255789680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it assumes that some people register email only perfunctorily and only for using that email to keep track of social-networking stuff.<br>Certainly some of you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers out there have different emails for different specific purposes, although maybe not for this specific "specific purpose."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it assumes that some people register email only perfunctorily and only for using that email to keep track of social-networking stuff.Certainly some of you /.ers out there have different emails for different specific purposes , although maybe not for this specific " specific purpose .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it assumes that some people register email only perfunctorily and only for using that email to keep track of social-networking stuff.Certainly some of you /.ers out there have different emails for different specific purposes, although maybe not for this specific "specific purpose.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743801</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743439</id>
	<title>Attachments can go to hell</title>
	<author>CXI</author>
	<datestamp>1255529220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>(where do the attachments go?)</i>
<br>
<br>
Attachments can go to hell, that's were they can go. We need to setup our communication methods correctly such that the message does not become the storage medium! I spend way too much time, effort and money trying to deal with people keeping files in their email and email archives as if it were a valid storage location. It just wasn't designed for that. So, I'm all for anything that makes it impossible to keep attachments directly with the message!</htmltext>
<tokenext>( where do the attachments go ?
) Attachments can go to hell , that 's were they can go .
We need to setup our communication methods correctly such that the message does not become the storage medium !
I spend way too much time , effort and money trying to deal with people keeping files in their email and email archives as if it were a valid storage location .
It just was n't designed for that .
So , I 'm all for anything that makes it impossible to keep attachments directly with the message !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(where do the attachments go?
)


Attachments can go to hell, that's were they can go.
We need to setup our communication methods correctly such that the message does not become the storage medium!
I spend way too much time, effort and money trying to deal with people keeping files in their email and email archives as if it were a valid storage location.
It just wasn't designed for that.
So, I'm all for anything that makes it impossible to keep attachments directly with the message!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744345</id>
	<title>The claim is really about form, not method.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255533600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The claim that instant messenging will replace email is really about form, not the method used.</p><p>This is very easy to show - for example, let's say that the "convention" was that all your Instant Messages were <b>written like</b> emails to somewhat known business associates. You start them with Dear Sir or Dear Mr. Bobbysocks, and finish with a Yours Sincerely. In this case, instant messages would be <b>indistinguishable from</b> the emails of today, so any talk of instant messanging "replacing" email would be bollycocks.</p><p>Therefore, for the claim not to be absurd, you would have to say that instant messenging replaces email <b>and</b> retains the form of today (because we have discounted it changing to the form that emails have). Is that likely? Sure, in the heads of some utopianists who except the convergence of the brotherhood of humanity, but in mine, probably not. Not all CEOs appreciate instant messages with "hey m8 could u hire me im good innit". There could of course be a third "form" developed which was unlike both emails and instant messages of today, but it's difficult to guess what that would be.</p><p>A big problem for those claiming that email will disappear is that there have already been developed a very large number of possible technological alternatives, but these haven't destroyed email so far. You'd therefore have to speculate about future developments, like telepathic or emotional messenging, and then it's all up in the air.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/removes extra large brain-hat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The claim that instant messenging will replace email is really about form , not the method used.This is very easy to show - for example , let 's say that the " convention " was that all your Instant Messages were written like emails to somewhat known business associates .
You start them with Dear Sir or Dear Mr. Bobbysocks , and finish with a Yours Sincerely .
In this case , instant messages would be indistinguishable from the emails of today , so any talk of instant messanging " replacing " email would be bollycocks.Therefore , for the claim not to be absurd , you would have to say that instant messenging replaces email and retains the form of today ( because we have discounted it changing to the form that emails have ) .
Is that likely ?
Sure , in the heads of some utopianists who except the convergence of the brotherhood of humanity , but in mine , probably not .
Not all CEOs appreciate instant messages with " hey m8 could u hire me im good innit " .
There could of course be a third " form " developed which was unlike both emails and instant messages of today , but it 's difficult to guess what that would be.A big problem for those claiming that email will disappear is that there have already been developed a very large number of possible technological alternatives , but these have n't destroyed email so far .
You 'd therefore have to speculate about future developments , like telepathic or emotional messenging , and then it 's all up in the air .
/removes extra large brain-hat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The claim that instant messenging will replace email is really about form, not the method used.This is very easy to show - for example, let's say that the "convention" was that all your Instant Messages were written like emails to somewhat known business associates.
You start them with Dear Sir or Dear Mr. Bobbysocks, and finish with a Yours Sincerely.
In this case, instant messages would be indistinguishable from the emails of today, so any talk of instant messanging "replacing" email would be bollycocks.Therefore, for the claim not to be absurd, you would have to say that instant messenging replaces email and retains the form of today (because we have discounted it changing to the form that emails have).
Is that likely?
Sure, in the heads of some utopianists who except the convergence of the brotherhood of humanity, but in mine, probably not.
Not all CEOs appreciate instant messages with "hey m8 could u hire me im good innit".
There could of course be a third "form" developed which was unlike both emails and instant messages of today, but it's difficult to guess what that would be.A big problem for those claiming that email will disappear is that there have already been developed a very large number of possible technological alternatives, but these haven't destroyed email so far.
You'd therefore have to speculate about future developments, like telepathic or emotional messenging, and then it's all up in the air.
/removes extra large brain-hat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745409</id>
	<title>Not for me...</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1255537920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We all still use email, of course. But email was better suited to the way we used to use the Internet--logging off and on, checking our messages in bursts. Now, we are always connected, whether we are sitting at a desk or on a mobile phone. The always-on connection, in turn, has created a host of new ways to communicate that are much faster than email, and more fun.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Speak for yourself.  I don't have a Facebook or MySpace account, refuse to use IM because it's annoying and don't carry a cell phone (or don't keep it on).  I'm not a luddite; I just don't want or need to be that connected all the time.  Call or email me at home or work and I'll get back to you when I'm frelling ready.  My time is important and, quite frankly, more important than yours - to me anyway.  I'll get my "fun" elsewhere thank you.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We all still use email , of course .
But email was better suited to the way we used to use the Internet--logging off and on , checking our messages in bursts .
Now , we are always connected , whether we are sitting at a desk or on a mobile phone .
The always-on connection , in turn , has created a host of new ways to communicate that are much faster than email , and more fun .
Speak for yourself .
I do n't have a Facebook or MySpace account , refuse to use IM because it 's annoying and do n't carry a cell phone ( or do n't keep it on ) .
I 'm not a luddite ; I just do n't want or need to be that connected all the time .
Call or email me at home or work and I 'll get back to you when I 'm frelling ready .
My time is important and , quite frankly , more important than yours - to me anyway .
I 'll get my " fun " elsewhere thank you .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all still use email, of course.
But email was better suited to the way we used to use the Internet--logging off and on, checking our messages in bursts.
Now, we are always connected, whether we are sitting at a desk or on a mobile phone.
The always-on connection, in turn, has created a host of new ways to communicate that are much faster than email, and more fun.
Speak for yourself.
I don't have a Facebook or MySpace account, refuse to use IM because it's annoying and don't carry a cell phone (or don't keep it on).
I'm not a luddite; I just don't want or need to be that connected all the time.
Call or email me at home or work and I'll get back to you when I'm frelling ready.
My time is important and, quite frankly, more important than yours - to me anyway.
I'll get my "fun" elsewhere thank you.
:-)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29750493</id>
	<title>Re:Those who don't know history</title>
	<author>Trogre</author>
	<datestamp>1255517400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it finally October 1, 1993?</p><p>(Dammit, why can I never refer to that phenomenon without mentally rendering a certain Green Day song?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it finally October 1 , 1993 ?
( Dammit , why can I never refer to that phenomenon without mentally rendering a certain Green Day song ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it finally October 1, 1993?
(Dammit, why can I never refer to that phenomenon without mentally rendering a certain Green Day song?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743801</id>
	<title>More social site users that email users? WTF?</title>
	<author>YeeHaW\_Jelte</author>
	<datestamp>1255531140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finishing the alinea you started quoting from:</p><p>"In August 2009, 276.9 million people used email across the U.S., several European countries, Australia and Brazil, according to Nielsen Co., up 21\% from 229.2 million in August 2008. But the number of users on social-networking and other community sites jumped 31\% to 301.5 million people."</p><p>Pardon me? 277 million people using mail, 301.5 million using social networking sites?</p><p>Am I mistaken in thinking that you actually need an emailaddress to join such a site? How do the 25 something million people manage to get their passwords, notifications etc?</p><p>This is just uninspired journalism. Don't know what to write, predict the demise of settled technology X in favour of new technology Y.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finishing the alinea you started quoting from : " In August 2009 , 276.9 million people used email across the U.S. , several European countries , Australia and Brazil , according to Nielsen Co. , up 21 \ % from 229.2 million in August 2008 .
But the number of users on social-networking and other community sites jumped 31 \ % to 301.5 million people .
" Pardon me ?
277 million people using mail , 301.5 million using social networking sites ? Am I mistaken in thinking that you actually need an emailaddress to join such a site ?
How do the 25 something million people manage to get their passwords , notifications etc ? This is just uninspired journalism .
Do n't know what to write , predict the demise of settled technology X in favour of new technology Y .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finishing the alinea you started quoting from:"In August 2009, 276.9 million people used email across the U.S., several European countries, Australia and Brazil, according to Nielsen Co., up 21\% from 229.2 million in August 2008.
But the number of users on social-networking and other community sites jumped 31\% to 301.5 million people.
"Pardon me?
277 million people using mail, 301.5 million using social networking sites?Am I mistaken in thinking that you actually need an emailaddress to join such a site?
How do the 25 something million people manage to get their passwords, notifications etc?This is just uninspired journalism.
Don't know what to write, predict the demise of settled technology X in favour of new technology Y.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29747605</id>
	<title>Re:Attachments can go to hell</title>
	<author>superdave80</author>
	<datestamp>1255547460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The worst 'lazy' computer user I ever saw was one of the owners of the company I worked for.  While doing a reinstall of his laptop, I saw that his trash folder was huge, so I went ahead and emptied it.  When he opened Outlook, he asked "What happened to all my emails?"  I asked him which emails he was referring to, and he said the ones in the trash bin.  Come to find out, he used the <b>trash bin</b> as his 'archive'.  What a lazy moron.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The worst 'lazy ' computer user I ever saw was one of the owners of the company I worked for .
While doing a reinstall of his laptop , I saw that his trash folder was huge , so I went ahead and emptied it .
When he opened Outlook , he asked " What happened to all my emails ?
" I asked him which emails he was referring to , and he said the ones in the trash bin .
Come to find out , he used the trash bin as his 'archive' .
What a lazy moron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The worst 'lazy' computer user I ever saw was one of the owners of the company I worked for.
While doing a reinstall of his laptop, I saw that his trash folder was huge, so I went ahead and emptied it.
When he opened Outlook, he asked "What happened to all my emails?
"  I asked him which emails he was referring to, and he said the ones in the trash bin.
Come to find out, he used the trash bin as his 'archive'.
What a lazy moron.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743875</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743525</id>
	<title>Good.  Now leave me alone.</title>
	<author>IGnatius T Foobar</author>
	<datestamp>1255529700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone please send this article to all of the spammers.  That way, they'll all move to Fecesbook.  I don't have a Fecesbook account, so I don't have to see their spam (for that matter, I'd rather read Viagra ads than "25 Things About Me" pages anyway).<br> <br>Email isn't going anywhere.  Fecesbook is a fad.  <b>Everyone</b> has an email account.  Email is also (in theory at least) guaranteed delivery.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone please send this article to all of the spammers .
That way , they 'll all move to Fecesbook .
I do n't have a Fecesbook account , so I do n't have to see their spam ( for that matter , I 'd rather read Viagra ads than " 25 Things About Me " pages anyway ) .
Email is n't going anywhere .
Fecesbook is a fad .
Everyone has an email account .
Email is also ( in theory at least ) guaranteed delivery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone please send this article to all of the spammers.
That way, they'll all move to Fecesbook.
I don't have a Fecesbook account, so I don't have to see their spam (for that matter, I'd rather read Viagra ads than "25 Things About Me" pages anyway).
Email isn't going anywhere.
Fecesbook is a fad.
Everyone has an email account.
Email is also (in theory at least) guaranteed delivery.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29752459</id>
	<title>Re:google wave? come on now...</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1255531260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A post above outlined that there are three types of communication: synchronous (two-way), asynchronous (one-way) and broadcasted. Google Wave is a combination of the three, in that you can utilize all of them at the same time within one system (except for email, which can interact with other systems as usual).</p><p>Because it is restricted to one system, namely Google's, it won't reach critical mass until either other current systems can work with it somehow or Wavelets become an open standard and can be added onto current systems as-is. I hope that Google's pushing for the latter direction, as it's quite an interesting technology...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A post above outlined that there are three types of communication : synchronous ( two-way ) , asynchronous ( one-way ) and broadcasted .
Google Wave is a combination of the three , in that you can utilize all of them at the same time within one system ( except for email , which can interact with other systems as usual ) .Because it is restricted to one system , namely Google 's , it wo n't reach critical mass until either other current systems can work with it somehow or Wavelets become an open standard and can be added onto current systems as-is .
I hope that Google 's pushing for the latter direction , as it 's quite an interesting technology.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A post above outlined that there are three types of communication: synchronous (two-way), asynchronous (one-way) and broadcasted.
Google Wave is a combination of the three, in that you can utilize all of them at the same time within one system (except for email, which can interact with other systems as usual).Because it is restricted to one system, namely Google's, it won't reach critical mass until either other current systems can work with it somehow or Wavelets become an open standard and can be added onto current systems as-is.
I hope that Google's pushing for the latter direction, as it's quite an interesting technology...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743167</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29747909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29746163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29752401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29751697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29754315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29749471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29750169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29746861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29746583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29751247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29749607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29781301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29747133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29750465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29750469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29747469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29749337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743801
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29746289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29747605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29756559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29772835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29767143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29751529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29749233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29750493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29751943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29752459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29747713
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29755257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29751599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29767105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_016257_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744743
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29772835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743875
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29747605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29751943
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29754315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29746163
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743353
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743421
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29767105
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745233
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29747469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29747133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744663
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29746861
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744849
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743745
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743383
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744451
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29750169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745439
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29750465
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743801
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29746289
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29781301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745693
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29750493
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29751697
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29750467
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745401
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29751599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743371
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744005
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29751529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745091
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29756559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29749471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743313
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743635
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29752401
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744675
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743939
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29751247
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29750469
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29749337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29749607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29745681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29755257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29746583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743427
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743345
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743287
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29767143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744779
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29744085
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743209
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_016257.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29752459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29743367
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29749233
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29747713
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_016257.29747909
</commentlist>
</conversation>
